Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Direct

Mr. Patrick Hall: How many people are covered by NHS Direct; and what is his programme for expansion. [81807]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Following the success of the three pilot schemes, NHS Direct has been extended to cover around 20 million people. By December this year, a further 10 million people will have access to this highly successful new service, which will cover the whole country next year.

Mr. Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome his announcement that Bedford will be home to a new NHS Direct call centre in the autumn of this year. Will Bedfordshire benefit from Sheffield university's evaluation of the early experience of NHS Direct, particularly with regard to local publicity and the apparent under-use of the service by those over 65? Will my constituents benefit from NHS Direct outreach and the proposed new information points?

Mr. Dobson: We were determined from the start to ensure that we learned from the pilot schemes in the gradual extension of NHS Direct. That is why we established the pilots. We have made every effort to ensure that the system expands as quickly as is sensible and that the initial volume of calls can be coped with, gradually building up so that the staff can learn from experience. A surprisingly low proportion of calls have come from old people, although some old people have called. We shall extend the publicity to try to ensure that enough old people are aware of the service. On the first day of operation in west Yorkshire, a call came in from an old lady who said that she was just ringing to make sure that the service would be there when she needed it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How does the Secretary of State expect the necessary staff to be employed and retained in NHS Direct and everywhere else in the health service when twice in a week the Government have broken their word to the two largest groups of employees in the

health service? On 1 February, the Government promised that the recommended pay increases for nurses would be paid in full from 1 April. Most, if not all, NHS nurses have received no additional pay in their April pay packets and may not receive it until September. Today we hear that, having agreed a few years ago that junior hospital doctors would work for only 56 hours a week, the Government are proposing in Europe that they should be allowed to work for 65 hours a week. Do the Government not realise that they cannot save the NHS when they are undermining its key groups of staff?

Mr. Dobson: All that I can say in response to that question, which was allegedly about NHS Direct, is that we have had no difficulty in recruiting nursing staff, including disabled staff, to serve at NHS Direct. I expect that trend to continue. The service is very popular. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the working time directive. The Government have no intention of increasing the hours of work of a single junior doctor in the United Kingdom. We are still committed to implementing the new deal for junior doctors' hours, which we inherited from the previous Government. About 15 per cent. of junior doctors still work longer than those hours. We want to get those hours down. We are also making provision for better sleeping and feeding arrangements. My hon. Friend the Minister of State had a sensible and worthwhile meeting with junior doctors about those issues last week.

Primary Care Groups

Mr. Denis MacShane: If he will make a statement on progress in the introduction of primary care groups. [81808]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Four hundred and eighty one primary care groups came into operation on 1 April. I pay tribute to the hard work of all those who have made possible that voluntary change, and I congratulate general practitioners on agreeing for the first time to share decision making on primary care with other professions and lay people.

Madam Speaker: Am I to understand that Question 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), is to be linked with Question 2?

Mr. Dobson: If you wish it, Madam Speaker.

Mr. MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Has he had a chance to read the new paperback book called "Satan's Children", written by the Opposition deputy spokesman on health, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)? On page 319 there is a reference to the need to impose charges on users of the NHS as a deterrent. Will my right hon. Friend repudiate such nonsense and the other nonsense from the queen of the underworld—the shadow Secretary of State—and her exotic sidekick?

Madam Speaker: Order. A little more temperate language would be in order.

Mr. MacShane: I apologise, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the sensible speech of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), which almost seemed to be on the new Labour wavelength?


Will my right hon. Friend consider the training of primary care groups, as the training of all involved in the partnerships—from GPs to receptionists—must be an integral part of making PCGs work? Will he instruct his officials to ensure that training is a part of the PCG programme in the future?

Mr. Dobson: I hesitate to correct my hon. Friend, but I believe that the book to which he referred is called not "Satan's Children" but "Saturn's Children"—which may account for the fact that the Tories seem to be running rings around one another all the time. They are certainly not running rings around any one else.
I will consider the question of the training of those serving on the boards of primary care groups. I believe that some training has been provided. Now that the PCGs have been established, I expect that the time taken by those serving on the boards will be reduced. We all know that a process of change or take-off is rather more time-consuming than what happens when one is cruising along. The PCGs are now established, and most are cruising along effectively.

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on appointments to primary care group boards. [81810]
The Secretary of State has clearly forgotten that he asked for Questions 2 and 3 to be linked. He has also forgotten, apparently, that it is customary in the circumstances to attempt to answer both questions, not just one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] That is very rich coming from Labour Members. The Secretary of State made not even a passing reference to appointments to primary care group boards.
Given the information that has come to light already—that, in respect of appointments to health authorities and trusts to date, 84 per cent. of the councillors appointed have been Labour councillors—is it not ludicrous that the Department, in a written answer on 19 April from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), told me that it did not even intend to provide information about the political affiliation of those appointed to primary care groups? Is it not obvious that the Secretary of State is adding to the scandal of the political bias of the appointments made by the Department a further scandal—that of attempting to cover it up?

Mr. Dobson: Since Labour took office, 50 per cent. of the appointments to NHS boards have been women—a step in the right direction—and 11 per cent. have been black or Asian, which is one way of dealing with the institutionalised racism in the health service that we inherited from the Conservative party. As for primary care groups, we do not keep records because the bulk of the members of the groups are elected by GPs. It would be wholly improper for me to inquire into the political affiliation of the people whom GPs or local nurses elect to represent them on the boards of primary care groups.

Mr. David Borrow: GPs in my area of south Lancashire were involved in the pilots that operated prior to 1 April, and they were enthusiastic supporters of

the change. However, they are concerned that the structures under primary care groups are too prescriptive. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing more local flexibility as the new system beds down, to allow a greater recognition of the differences between one locality and another?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly wish to do that. Most of the detailed advice that we provided was at the request of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners which, at almost all stages, asked for further and more detailed guidance than we were giving them.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: How much confidence can primary care groups have in their local hospitals when junior doctors will be obliged to work 65 hours a week instead of 56? If that is not the case, why did the Secretary of State propose it to the European Commission?

Mr. Dobson: We did not propose that to the European Commission. We are not proposing that any junior doctor should work longer hours than at present. The right hon. Lady knows that, and she should stop pursuing this daft line of argument.

Miss Widdecombe: If that was not proposed to the European Commission, why have I received a statement that says:
The British proposals were put forward at a meeting of officials in Brussels yesterday in advance of their meeting later this month. European Commission officials said they were 'shocked' by the British stance on junior doctor hours. A Commission spokeswoman said: 'We are not talking about Turkish carpets here—we are talking about junior doctors' health and safety, and the lives of their patients.'"?
If there has been no proposal, how does the Commission know about it, and why does it say that there has been such a proposal?

Mr. Dobson: I find it extraordinary that a member of the anti-European Tory party should quote with approval criticisms of the Government of a sovereign state by a public official of the European Union.
Talks are going on in Europe in which the various Governments are considering the impact of the working time directive on doctors in their countries. We should be judged not by what is happening now but by how we end up. We are determined to end up with a system in which our junior doctors—and the interests of the national health service—are properly protected, and are not trapped by any rigidities imposed from Brussels.

Miss Widdecombe: When the European Commission says that it received a proposal from the British Government yesterday to raise junior doctors' hours from 56 to 65, is it misleading us, or is the Secretary of State having an incredible fit of imagination?

Mr. Dobson: Neither. As far as I know, the European Commission has not issued any official response to what we have said. Certainly, no one with any authority has done so.

Drug Addiction

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the extent to which the requirements on the NHS to deal with the effects of drug addiction and abuse are increasing or decreasing. [81812]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): A key objective of the Government's drugs strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", is to increase the participation of problem drug misusers in drug treatment programmes. The number of users starting drug treatment in all agencies, including the national health service, has increased from 17,684 in the six months ending March 1994 to 23,916 in the six months ending March 1998.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In the light of that serious information, do the Government accept that hepatitis C, which stems from needle abuse, is reaching epidemic proportions in some parts of the country? Is the Minister willing to look into the matter and consider whether sufficient resources and attention are being given to this serious and worsening problem?

Ms Jowell: I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point about the risks posed by hepatitis C, from which drug users are particularly at risk. We are considering how to reduce its prevalence among those who persistently misuse drugs.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not a disgrace that Opposition Front Benchers should deliberately encourage the use of a drug that kills 1,000 times more people every year than heroin? I refer to the deadly, addictive drug tobacco. The official Opposition are complaining and asking for the price of tobacco to be reduced, even though there is irrefutable evidence that every time the price is increased, its use declines. Will my right hon. Friend condemn the official Opposition for that blatant attempt at drug pushing?

Ms Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this is another example of the Opposition in disarray, which is a daily occurrence. An Opposition Member has today criticised the Government's stance on raising tobacco taxation, whereas the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), a former Secretary of State for Health, claimed that tobacco taxation is crucial in reducing deaths caused by smoking. We have double-speak from the Opposition, and once again we have Tory disarray.

Eye and Dental Checks

Mr. Paul Burstow: If he will make it his policy to restore universal free eye and dental checks. [81813]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and people on low incomes have always been eligible for free dental checks and sight tests. From 1 April, we restored free NHS sight tests to everyone aged 60 and

over—tests which were taken away by the previous Government as part of their policy of levying more and more charges on NHS patients.

Mr. Burstow: Although we welcome the extension mentioned by the Secretary of State, does he accept that many of us who believe in preventive health care are disappointed that the Government have not recognised the need to transfer more resources into prevention, which will save more money in the long run? More specifically, on dental care—another area in which we would like an extension of check-ups—my local health authority has seen seven out of 10 of its dentists registering increases in waiting lists. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a further sign that the health service is under pressure and that resources are not going where they are needed? Resources are going not into prevention but into cure, which would not be needed if adequate funds were provided to detect problems and treat them early.

Mr. Dobson: It is certainly the case that this Government intend to put more and more resources into the prevention of ill-health, and we will continue to do so. However, it is our judgment, at least for the time being, that the gains to be achieved by restoring free dental checks are not as great as those that will be achieved by restoring free sight tests to everyone aged 60 and over. Priorities have to be balanced against other uses that could be made of the money, and we believe that at the moment there are better uses.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the reintroduction of free eye tests for the elderly. Does he agree that we inherited an NHS dental service in rapid decline following 18 years of Conservative Government? Many of my constituents are unable to get an NHS dental service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be a priority for this Government to ensure that we again have an NHS dental service for all of our people?

Mr. Dobson: It is certainly the case that the policies of the previous Government effectively privatised NHS dental care in many parts of the country. We are taking steps to reverse that. More than 600,000 more people visited NHS dentists last year than in the previous year. We want to build on that progress, but it will take time, because we cannot force dentists out of their private practices into the NHS.

Mr. Alan Duncan: We do not ever expect the Government to do much that they promised before the election, least of all in looking after people's eyes and teeth within the NHS. Will they do one thing for eyes that needs doing and that we would support? So far, the Government have done nothing to prepare people for the dangers of August's solar eclipse. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will implement a programme to inform people in schools and elsewhere about how to look after their eyes when they are tempted to stare at the sun? What are the Government's plans?

Mr. Dobson: Measures will be taken, as they have been taken in the past, to warn people of the dangers of staring into the sun during an eclipse. The way things are going it will be the eclipse of the Tory party.

Oral Health

Ms Hazel Blears: What action he is taking to improve the oral health of children and young people in inner-city areas. [81814]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Because of the clear link between deprivation and tooth decay, we have funded health authorities in areas with some of the highest levels of dental decay to distribute toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste to children in schools in the most deprived parts of those areas. From 1 April 1998, in addition to the general uplift in the fees that dentists receive, we increased capitation payments for children under six in deprived areas by an additional 25 per cent. We have also commissioned the Health Education Authority to produce further leaflets and information for parents and carers of very young children to complement the advice and guidance available from health visitors. We have also arranged for the translation into Asian languages, of leaflets about caring for very young children's teeth because some children in Asian communities are especially vulnerable to tooth decay.

Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extensive reply. Is she aware of our innovative project in Salford, where we have just launched a mobile dental surgery, funded in part by the Humphrey Booth charity and run by the general dental service? The mobile surgery goes to primary schools—so the children have no escape from the dentist—and is proving to be surprisingly popular. It also provides a drop-in centre for dental services for young homeless people. That project was funded under the Government's investing in dentistry strategy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that other, similarly innovative projects will be supported in our poorest communities?

Ms Jowell: The answer is yes. The project described by my hon. Friend is extremely worthwhile. It goes some way towards explaining why the dental health of Salford's five-year-olds has improved so much since 1995. I congratulate all those involved with that excellent initiative, which we shall examine to see whether it can be applied in other parts of the country to tackle the tooth decay experienced by very young children in some of our most deprived areas.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Minister will know that some people who want to improve oral hygiene advocate the mass fluoridation of the water supply.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Shocking.

Mr. Robathan: Some constituents have written to me to express their great anxiety about that. I share that anxiety, and have sought advice on the matter. Although I have come across some evidence and opinion that mass fluoridation is useful, other evidence suggests that it may have long-term adverse affects on the human skeleton. Will the Minister reassure the House that, before this poison is artificially introduced into the water supply, it will have been established beyond doubt that there will be absolutely no long-term harmful effects on people who, like those in the west midlands, are forced to drink fluoridated water?

Ms Jowell: In the last few seconds, the House has seen the strong feelings aroused by the debate about putting

fluoride in water. I remind the House that the legislation permitting the fluoridation of water was passed under the previous Conservative Government.
The public health Green Paper involved wide consultation on attitudes to fluoridation, and the White Paper to be published shortly will set out our response to that consultation.

Stroke Care

Mr. Harry Barnes: What actions he proposes to take to reduce death and disability among those who do not have access to organised stroke care. [81815]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The national service framework for older people was launched in November last year and will focus on those parts of the national health service that are particularly important to older people. The provision of effective stroke care is one of the key issues that it will consider. The national service framework will set national standards and define service models, put in place strategies to support implementation and establish performance measures against which progress—for example, in providing effective stroke care and agreeing time scales—can be measured.

Mr. Barnes: Has the Minister seen the Stroke Association's report entitled "Stroke Care: A Matter of Chance", which shows that the provision of specialist stroke units varies considerably around the country? For example, 70 per cent. of stroke victims in Northern Ireland can be treated in that way, but only 37 per cent. in the south-west of England. There is no such unit in north Derbyshire, the area that I represent. I welcome the Minister's remarks about the national service framework for older people, and I know that the Stroke Association is working within that framework. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the next set of priorities and planning guidance to be formulated for the national health service will add to the existing provision? Some hon. Members know that other hon. Members are only a stroke behind them.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and I am aware of his situation. We welcome the Stroke Association's report, which showed that three quarters of consultants have access to an organised stroke service. Such access is increasing. We are very conscious of the need for consistency around the country. That is why we have organised the national service framework and tasked it with producing consistent national standards for the development of effective stroke care. The national priorities guidance already covers stroke care. We have set rigorous targets for trying to reduce morbidity from strokes by 2010.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Given the Minister's obvious concern for patients who suffer from strokes, and his awareness of the role that day care centres attached to community hospitals can play, can he say whether the Department has decided to save the pioneering work of the Burford community hospital? Has not the time come to put its worried patients out of their misery by saying that the Government will save it?

Mr. Hutton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. All I can say about the proposals for


Oxfordshire is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is continuing to review the matter and has not come to a decision.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the Government's commitment to addressing the problem, but is the Minister aware that the deficiency of stroke care is so serious that, in many hospital trusts, stroke rehabilitation is being rationed on the basis of the age of patients? Will he try to ensure that that practice, which is wholly contrary to the spirit of the NHS, is stopped?

Mr. Hutton: We have repeatedly stressed that discrimination against older people in the NHS is fundamentally inconsistent with the service's basic ethos, and we will not tolerate it. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in the matter. We are not complacent about the situation, which is why the national service framework is reviewing the provision of effective stroke care. We want those services to improve.

Medical School Places

Mr. Alan Johnson: How many of the bids received by his Department for new medical school places focused on primary health care. [81816]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The Government are committed to providing 1,000 extra places in medical schools so that we can produce more doctors. Twenty proposals have been received to create the extra places by extending existing medical schools or establishing new ones. All the submissions address primary health care issues.

Mr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that the University of Hull and its NHS partners have submitted an excellent bid based on primary and community care-based clinical excellence. Can he assure me that the largely untapped resources outside the traditional, established medical school areas will be fully and fairly evaluated in that exercise?

Mr. Dobson: I assure my hon. Friend that, in so far as it is within my power—ultimately, the decision lies not with me but with the Higher Education Funding Council—I want to ensure that all the applications are thoroughly scrutinised so that we get good-quality proposals and value for money. I cannot say any more about the individual bids, except that most of them appear to have been top quality.

Mr. Peter Luff: On new medical school places, does the right hon. Gentleman think that his clear intention, which he has tried but failed to conceal, to make junior doctors continue to work unreasonably long hours will make it easier or more difficult to fill places?

Mr. Dobson: On the assumption that the hon. Gentleman needs medical treatment to clean out his ears, I repeat that it is not the intention of the Government that any junior doctor should be expected to work longer hours.

Residential Care

Dr. Lynne Jones: What measures he is taking to improve the regulation of residential care. [81818]

Ms Sally Keeble: What measures he is taking to improve the regulation of residential care. [81820]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): We intend to establish eight new independent commissions for care standards to register and inspect all residential care homes, nursing homes, all children's homes and other care services. We are also developing national regulatory standards in relation to the provision of care and we shall ensure that those standards are met. Those measures will provide stronger protection for vulnerable people in residential care and other care settings, and provide a more coherent and consistent regulatory framework.

Dr. Jones: I welcome the proposals to improve the consistency of care standards, but one of my concerns is that, after years of Tory Government constraint on capital investment, many local councils, such as Birmingham, are facing unacceptable delays in bringing the physical conditions in their residential homes up to their own registration standards. That is forcing them into privatisation deals against the wishes of residents. Will my hon. Friend ensure that adequate capital resources are made available to local authorities so that we can honour our commitment to pensioners to put a halt to Tory policies that have forced councils to sell off old people's homes?

Mr. Hutton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns; we have discussed those issues on the Floor of the House on previous occasions. I am sure that she would agree, however, that the main issue for all hon. Members is to ensure that, right across the spectrum—whether in private care, independent care or local authority care—there are consistently high standards in the quality of care. That is the real issue—not who is providing that care. We made those policies extremely clear in our modernising social services White Paper.
However, I point out to my hon. Friend and to the House that the recent local government settlement provided record new resources for social services—more than £523 million of additional resources this year. We are keen to encourage social services departments to explore new, innovative ways of packaging and financing the provision of residential care. That is the best way to meet what our constituents want—better care, better standards and better provision.

Ms Keeble: I welcome the proposals for the commissions; I hope that they will lead to a substantial improvement in the care of people in all sectors—private, independent and council. However, will my hon. Friend give me assurances on three questions? First, could the commissions look at personal living allowances, which, in some homes, are used to supplement costs instead of going to people so that they can pay for personal expenses? Secondly, can there be provision for lay visitors, or advocates, for people in homes, and can such


visitors have right of access, to supplement inspections? If people are concerned about a particular issue, there would be someone in whom they can have confidence to take it up, and that person would have right of access to the home. Thirdly, could the commissions consider the particular needs of ethnic minority people in care? Often, skin care, diet and so on are not properly provided for, especially in the case of children and elderly people. Will my hon. Friend give me assurances on those three matters?

Mr. Hutton: We are considering the whole issue of personal living expenses—the personal living allowance—as part of our wider response to the recommendations of the royal commission. We shall announce some proposals when that consideration has been completed.
My hon. Friend asked a specific question about the provision of services for ethnic minorities. It is up to local authorities to ensure that there is a balanced range of provision to reflect the needs of the local population. That is very much the responsibility of the social services departments.
As for complaints procedures and the role of independent advocates, there are already requirements for proper complaints procedures to be in place in every local authority in England and Wales. We envisage that one of the responsibilities of the new commissions for care standards will be to ensure that those procedures are working properly—that will fall four-square within the remit of the new commissions.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that, although there are certainly merits in a greater degree of consistency in the regulations for residential care homes, that presupposes that there is a residential care home sector to be regulated? Homes in both the private and the public sectors face the impact of the working time regulations and the national minimum wage, in addition to the general course of inflation, because they are major employers. In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman not find it odd that, for example, Northamptonshire county council—the county of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and myself—can offer only an additional 2.5 per cent. to providers? That is totally inadequate to maintain that service.

Mr. Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is most important for workers in this sector to have the same basic employment entitlements as anyone else. I am sure that he is not arguing—although perhaps some of his right hon. and hon. Friends are—that the minimum wage legislation and the basic entitlements to statutory rights at work should not apply in care homes. That would be a most unfortunate position for him to adopt. We have given local authorities a record amount of resources this year. Later in the summer, we shall produce some proposals to try to improve the commissioning process—whereby local authorities purchase care from the independent and private sectors. However, it is wrong—even by implication—to suggest that there is a crisis in the independent care home sector. That is not so. That sector continues to grow and expand.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We recognise the importance of the private, independent and voluntary

sectors in residential care, and welcome the Government's commitment to improve that care to the highest standards. To what extent are such homes regulated in respect of dealing with waste, both clinical and other, bearing in mind that it has an impact on the economy and on health care, and that, as I understand it, residential homes outstrip the national health service in terms of the amount of waste that they generate?

Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I do not have any specific information to enable me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question today, but I shall be happy to correspond with him. One of the strong advantages of our proposals is that the new commissions for care standards will bring together both regulators from social services departments and inspectors from health authorities, so that we have a proper spread of expertise located within the regulatory and inspection bodies. That is a significant step forward and, as I said, I shall be happy to correspond with the hon. Gentleman in more detail on the technical questions that he raises.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Residential care home owners in my constituency have raised with me their concern about the inconsistency of some of the inspectors who currently operate through local authorities: they feel that, often, the judgment of the facilities in their home depends on which inspector turns up. Therefore, although they welcome the new commissions, they are concerned that some of those inconsistent inspectors might simply reappear with a new title. What can my hon. Friend say to those people to assure them that there will be greater consistency under the new arrangements?

Mr. Hutton: I can tell my hon. Friend, and he can pass the message on to care home owners in his constituency, that the issues he raises are precisely why we are intent on developing proper national regulatory standards. We have received from the Centre for Policy on Ageing specific proposals on which we intend to consult nationally in the near future. Through the combination of clear national standards and an improved regulatory and inspection mechanism, we shall overcome some of the problems that my hon. Friend raises. Of course, the final decision on which inspectors are employed by the new care commissions will be taken by them, not by me.

Beta Interferon

Mr. John Bercow: What recent representations he has received in respect of the provision of beta interferon in the NHS. [81819]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Our records show that we have received 114 written representations from Members of Parliament, patients' groups and the public about the prescribing and funding of beta interferon since 1 January this year.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Given that Miss Caroline Cripps and Mr. Marc Smith—two brave young constituents of mine who suffer from the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis—were recommended for treatment by beta interferon by their respective consultant neurologists in June and


November 1998, but that they have so far endured the misery of being denied funding by Buckinghamshire health authority, can the Minister today give the House a guarantee that new guidance will be issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as soon as possible, and no later than the start of the summer recess, to the effect that, where beta interferon is clinically appropriate, it should ordinarily be prescribed?

Mr. Denham: I am aware that Buckinghamshire health authority has given the go-ahead for more patients to be treated with the drug, but the issue the hon. Gentleman raises is nevertheless an important one. There is wide variation in prescribing practice, although that, as often as not, reflects clinicians' differing views on the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of the drug. We have said that we are likely to ask NICE to prepare guidance on the use of beta interferon for both the relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive forms of the disease; but given that NICE came into existence only on 1 April, I do not believe that I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that it will be possible for it to report before the summer recess.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will we have some national service framework for beta interferon so that we may get rid of the rationing mess that we inherited from the previous Government and direct regional health authorities to spend money in this area of intervention?

Mr. Denham: We have not said that there will be a national service framework in relation to multiple sclerosis, but we want the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide authoritative guidance on the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of different treatments and pharmaceuticals. The issuing of such guidance will ensure greater consistency in practice from one part of the country to another. We inherited quite unacceptable variations in practice, and we are determined to tackle that problem.

Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister will know that the Minister for Public Health has said in the House that there is no rationing in the national health service. However, the chairman of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has stated that that institute may have to recommend against availability on the national health service of clinically effective drugs such as beta interferon because of limited resources. Would Health Ministers accept such a recommendation from NICE? If that is not rationing, what is?

Mr. Denham: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman refers persistently to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, because I have said precisely the same thing on several occasions. Priority setting has been a part of every health system in the world, and I believe that the national health service is fairer and more equitable than all of those systems. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we know what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are up to: they are seeking to use this issue to undermine public confidence in the national health service in order to promote their own agenda of private health care.

Generic Drugs

Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on trends in the prices of commonly prescribed generic drugs since 1 January. [81821]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The United Kingdom benefits from a competitive generic market in which prices fluctuate naturally in response to a wide range of factors. There have been reports of increases in the prices of some products since the new year, but I do not think it would be reasonable to attempt to define a trend based on the short period since 1 January 1999.

Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of the on-going concern about the effectiveness or otherwise of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme—indeed, that issue is partly addressed in the new Health Bill. Is the Minister aware of informal research conducted in Birmingham into 12 commonly prescribed drugs, which revealed that at least some have increased in price by 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. since 1 January this year? In one case, the price increased by 114 per cent. As I have said, that is informal research, but does it not suggest that consistent national research should be conducted so that we may discover what is going on in this area and be assured that the NHS, and therefore the patients, are not being ripped off by at least some pharmaceutical companies?

Mr. Denham: I assure my hon. Friend that we always monitor carefully the movements in pharmaceutical prices, and will continue to do so. I shall certainly examine the reported increases in the prices of some generic products since the beginning of the year.
By and large, generic prices are kept in check by the effects of competition and the reimbursement system for dispensing contractors. There were an unusually large number of shortages in the supply of certain medicines earlier this year. Those shortages appear to have been temporary—many have been resolved—but they may have been reflected in the price increases. The key point is my assurance to my hon. Friend and the House that we will monitor the situation very carefully to identify whether any other factors are at work.

Edgware Hospital

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement concerning the level and availability of out-patient and day surgery treatment at Edgware hospital. [81822]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Edgware community hospital forms an integral part of the health service in that part of London. All local national health service organisations are committed to ensuring that the level of out-patient and day surgery services at the hospital is appropriate and that those services are effective in meeting the needs of local people.

Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been some concern in my constituency that when


Wellhouse trust was running the acute services on the site, it was not delivering the level of service that my constituents were entitled to expect? Will he reassure my constituents that, now that acute services have been taken over by the merged Barnet and Chase Farm trust, they can expect to have the build-up of out-patient and day surgery cases that they are entitled to expect, to ensure that they can obtain treatment locally instead of having to travel quite long distances?

Mr. Denham: I want to reassure my hon. Friend. It is true that some services were transferred from Edgware hospital in what was always regarded as a short-term move. Currently, 60,000 out-patient attendances are reported at Edgware community hospital, but I can assure my hon. Friend that local NHS trusts are working hard, with the full support of the health authority and of primary care groups, to ensure that sessions in general surgery, urology, gynaecology and orthopaedics are reintroduced to the hospital.

Sir Sydney Chapman: What changes have there been to the accident services at Edgware other than those that were planned by the previous Government? Is not the truth of the matter that the only change that has been made is to call it something other than a minor accident treatment centre, which has so confused people who have what they think are serious injuries that they go to Edgware instead of Barnet?

Mr. Denham: It was the Government in which the hon. Gentleman served who closed the accident and emergency department. Since we came to office, we have sought to define clearly a new and positive role for Edgware community hospital. I have mentioned the additional services that local trusts are seeking to develop. The first phase of the redevelopment of the hospital has already been completed, at a capital cost of £11 million, and I understand that a full business case for phase 2 is due for submission to the National Health Service Executive shortly. We have therefore given significant backing to the future of the Edgware hospital.

Mr. Tony McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that the Tories, not the present Government, shut the A and E at Edgware, on 1 April 1997. Can he confirm that the services that the urgent treatment centre will provide will represent a significant advance on what went before, not least in telemedicine, given that it has all been taken over by Central Middlesex hospital trust—not Wellhouse trust, which was a sham and a disaster from day one?

Mr. Denham: I am afraid that I did not catch the latter half of my hon. Friend's question—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Sham.

Mr. Denham: I heard the word sham, but not what it referred to; that is why it is difficult for me to answer the question fully. However, my hon. Friend can be assured of our genuine commitment to the future development of high-quality services at Edgware community hospital.

Clinical Treatment (Priorities)

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the priorities for clinical treatment in the NHS. [81823]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Clinicians make decisions about clinical priorities, in consultation with patients and based on the clinician's assessment of need. These decisions should be taken within the broad framework of priorities which the Government have set out in the national priorities guidance, and from now on should reflect guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and, as they are established, national service frameworks covering coronary heart disease, mental health, the care of old people and diabetes.

Mr. Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the increase of some 200,000 in the number of patients who have to wait more than 13 weeks to get a first appointment with a consultant is a worrying denial of any clinical priority?

Mr. Dobson: The last advice that was issued to the national health service on clinical priorities—under the present Government on 18 July 1997—said:
Clinical priority must be the main determinant of when patients are seen as outpatients or admitted as inpatients. The first service priority of the NHS is to treat emergency cases quickly and appropriately. For elective patients consistent principles must be applied when planning outpatient clinics … and inpatient … admissions to ensure that patients with the greatest need are seen first.
That is what the clinicians should be doing and are doing.

Kali Mountford: I am glad that my right hon. Friend thinks that appropriate decisions should be taken by clinicians. Given that, two weeks ago, a report was published that throws doubt on the use of oral contraception by young women, will he ensure that it is clinicians who advise young women about the use of oral contraception, so that there is no repeat of the problems that we had some five years ago when, following the publication of a similar report, women were forced to resort to abortion or unwanted pregnancies?

Mr. Dobson: It is always important to ensure that reports on any existing form of treatment are carefully written by the people who produce them. Sometimes, unfortunately, even people who claim to be scientists or clinicians go for their 15 minutes of fame, rather than a proper, balanced presentation of the research that they have undertaken. They should always bear in mind the possible adverse impact of trying to gain publicity for its own sake.

Mr. David Davis: In the past two weeks, there have been two independent reports on stroke and cancer treatment, which indicate that 5,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year and that several thousand more people are invalided in one way or another as a result of being unable to get proper treatment on the national health service. Will there be a change in the Secretary of State's policy priorities on clinical treatment to reflect that?

Mr. Dobson: There has been a huge change in policy priorities under this Government, which are intended to


deal with the historic situation described in those reports. We recognise that there are massive variations in the availability of services across the country. It is preposterous that in some cases, people are more likely to get treatment the nearer they live to the specialist hospital that provides such treatment. That is an absurd situation. We are giving top priority to the reduction of coronary heart disease and strokes, and to dealing with cancer.
We also recognise, as the previous Government utterly failed to do, the inequalities in health. It is clear that poor people are ill more often, die sooner and frequently get less good treatment from the national health service than they should. We must do something about that. The previous Government did nothing about it. We have changed the priorities.

Mental Health (Drug Administration)

Mrs. Helen Brinton: If he will make a statement on the use of compulsion in community mental health drug administration treatments. [81824]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Our review of the Mental Health Act 1983 will bring to an end the requirement that compulsory treatment can be provided only in a hospital. A principal objective of the review is to create a new legislative framework that will support care and treatment in a wider range of settings and in the least restrictive environment possible, for which the current legislation fails to provide.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the considerable concern surrounding the Government's current review of the Mental Health Act 1983? Can he assure me that the changes that the Government will no doubt introduce will not result in an increasing number of patients being subjected to compulsory treatment in their communities?

Mr. Hutton: I am aware of those concerns. We have been trying to take them into account as we develop our proposals. The purpose of the review is to make sure that the legislation better protects patients. We will make it absolutely clear that any further provisions relating to compulsory treatment under any new legislation will be fully compliant with our obligations under the European convention on human rights—in other words, there will be proper safeguards.
Of course, any decision about whether a patient needs to be compulsorily detained is a matter for proper clinical assessment and risk assessment, and it is not Ministers who make such decisions. I am not sure whether it would be helpful for me to offer an opinion about the numbers. Those are ultimately decisions taken by the professionals.

Dr. Peter Brand: It is true that a clinical assessment must be made, but it is done within a

framework set by Ministers. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that the Home Office will be involved in the discussions on compulsory treatment orders, and that there will be a proper definition of what constitutes a clinically treatable mental illness, as opposed to a personality disorder?

Mr. Hutton: Any eventual proposals will be published by the Government for consultation. However, the hon. Gentleman is not right to say that it is Ministers who determine the individual assessments, or even the framework of the assessments. That is not so, and it is not and never has been provided for in the legislation. Those are issues for clinical assessment and clinical judgment. We intend to legislate for a better framework of mental health law, which will better provide for the needs of mentally ill people. We have made no secret about that and I am confident that it will produce a better framework of law in the long term.

Tobacco Advertising

Mr. John Gunnell: When he intends to publish regulations implementing the ban on tobacco advertising. [81825]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): We hope to publish regulations implementing the ban on tobacco advertising before the summer recess. They will be accompanied by a revised regulatory impact assessment and a further period of consultation will be allowed for before the regulations are laid before the House.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the progress that she is making. I hope that she proposes to make the regulations mandatory because it is important to have action and to have it followed up. If the regulations are not initially mandatory, I hope that they will soon become so. Is my right hon. Friend aware that billboard advertising of tobacco has now been banned in the United States of America—I was informed of that by the British Medical Association—which is a firm measure? It would be helpful if American companies that advertise their wares in the United States had similar difficulties when advertising them here—that goes for other legislation too. I am anxious that we should have tough legislation to stop such tobacco advertising.

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. I can confirm that the ban will be statutory and will have the effect of law. We are banning tobacco advertising because we are determined to cut preventable deaths from cancer and heart disease, to protect children and to tackle health inequalities.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any requests from the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence to make a statement on the justification for the use of graphite-based weapons in Yugoslavia to dismantle and disrupt electricity supplies? Has there been any consideration of the likely effect on Serb soldiers fighting in Kosovo and how they might react to what they hear is going on in their home towns? In particular, has any study been made of the effect of the policy not only on hospitals, but on the nuclear plant at Vinca; and of the possible radiation consequences of disrupting electricity safety supplies? Has there been any request for a statement on the concerns of the Bulgarian Government about their nuclear power station at Kozcoduy, where pollution in the Danube is creating problems with the coolant systems which the Bulgarians think could result—I am not saying that it would—in Chernobyl-like problems?

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I also seek your advice on nuclear safety? I have received a fax from one of the scientists at the nuclear science institute at Vinca, which has a research reactor that has not been used for 15 years but where there is a great deal of uranium 235. There is a possibility not only that it might be hit but that the electricity supplies may be disrupted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, with the effect that the uranium would be released into the atmosphere. I plead with you to continue your good work, Madam Speaker, in trying to keep the House informed about the war. Apparently the Government do not think it necessary to inform us on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on his successful visit to Albania and his speech to the Albanian Parliament? Perhaps you might accept such a request in the light of the fact that I understand that throughout his visit, wherever he

has been, but particularly in the presence of refugees, everyone has congratulated him on his decision to be part of a NATO force to bring democracy to Kosovo and relieve the suffering of millions of people.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. So that there should be absolutely no misunderstanding, many of us are concerned about the effects of the bombing raids, but we also recognise that the way to stop them is for the President of Serbia to come to the negotiating table and agree to what NATO has asked.
You will know, Madam Speaker, that Westminster Hall is used on various occasions for dignitaries visiting both Houses. I mentioned in Business questions on Thursday the "Panorama" programme that showed the terrible crimes and atrocities committed against ethnic Albanians. Will there be an opportunity to use Westminster Hall to show that film and perhaps other films so that Members of both Houses can see what has been happening in Kosovo, see the crimes that have been committed, and see why it was necessary for military action to be taken? The reason has been explained on several occasions in the House.

Madam Speaker: The last point is a matter for the Domestic Committees in the first instance and the hon. Gentleman may wish to put it to an appropriate Committee. I am of course anxious for the House to be kept informed on the other matters raised. I believe that the Government, too, are anxious that the House be kept informed about developments in Kosovo and the whole of that region. I have not been informed that any Minister seeks to make a statement. I am anxious for Ministers to do so and I am at the disposal of any Minister who wishes to make a statement.
I hope, however, that points of order will not be used to make political statements. I fear that it is coming to that. I understand the anxieties of all hon. Members. We all feel passionately one way or the other about the matter, but I ask them to use points of order simply to raise points about the order of business. As soon as a statement is available, I shall be here ready to deal with it. I am most anxious that the Government keep the House up to date on developments in that area.

Sex Education in Schools

Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce an entitlement for all children to receive sex and relationships education in schools from key stage one onwards; and for connected purposes.
We are failing the young people of our country in a key area of their health and education. The United Kingdom has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and the second highest number in the developed world. In England and Wales, 9.4 girls of every 1,000 under 16 become pregnant. The number of under-age pregnancies increased by 11 per cent. in 1997–98.
An article in the British Medical Journal by the distinguished Professor Michael Adler in June 1997 summarised the picture at that time:
The Health of the Nation has so far failed to deliver. The agenda for success is fourfold. Firstly, it requires clear, easily obtainable sex education and contraceptive advice for young people before they start to have sexual relationships, with the ability of the schools to give this without fear or hindrance from the Department of Education.
It went on to propose other methods of improving the sexual health of our young people.
It is not only in teenage pregnancy that there is failure. Britain has an unacceptably high rate of teenage abortion. For some people, abortion is an ethically outrageous exercise, and for others who do not take that view, it is nevertheless an avoidable medical procedure that can leave some psychological effects on some patients. It is entirely appropriate that all measures be taken to reduce the number of abortions, especially among the young, whatever side of the argument one is on.
There is an increasing number of single parents, with the social exclusion that the Government have recognised stems from that. Many single-parent families are unplanned. It is my contention in the Bill that education could be part of a strategy to reduce the number of single-parent families.
There is a huge demand for information from young people. A recent report by Childline entitled "I Can't Believe It Has Happened To Me" said that 7,317 girls and 434 boys called the line about pregnancy in 1997–98. Almost 80 per cent of those who gave their age were under 16; some were as young as 12. More 14 and 15-year-old girls called Childline about pregnancy than about any other issue.
The confidential young persons' sex information telephone line Sexwise is inundated with calls. It is not widely advertised: it cannot be more widely advertised, because it lacks the capacity to cope. When I visited its headquarters, I was shown that five or six calls were queueing up for every operator. That represents a failure to deliver the confidential advice and education that young people require.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. An hon. Member cannot give way when speaking on a ten-minute motion.

Dr. Harris: Currently sex education is provided in both primary and secondary schools, but I contend that it is

not adequate. Statutory sex education is not compulsory, apart from what is included in the science curriculum in primary schools. At present, at key stage 1, for pupils aged between five and seven, that covers
the naming of the main external parts of the human body, knowing that humans can produce babies and that these babies grow into children and then into adults.
In key stage 2, for children aged between seven and 11, as part of the science curriculum pupils are taught
the main stages of the human life cycle",
and at key stage 3, pupils aged between 11 and 14 are taught about
the human reproductive system, including the menstrual cycle and fertilisation.
What is missing from that bare-bones science curriculum is anything to do with relationships, responsibility and empowering young people to have control over their bodies and be able to resist the peer pressure that leads people into unwise sexual activity at too young an age.
Primary education should include a series of other items that are currently non-compulsory. Pupils should be able to
know that humans develop at different rates … name parts of the body including the reproductive system … know about personal safety—for example, know that individuals have rights over their own bodies, and that there are differences between good and bad touches; begin to develop simple skills and practices which will help maintain personal safety; appreciate ways in which people learn to live and work together listening, discussing and sharing; understand the importance of valuing oneself and others; begin to recognise the range of human emotions and ways to deal with these.
At present, that is not compulsory information for those aged between five and seven at key stage 1.
At key stage 2, for pupils aged between seven and 11, the non-compulsory sex education programme urges schools
to teach pupils to begin to know about and have some understanding of the physical, emotional and social changes which take place at puberty.
When young people are asked whether they feel that they are receiving adequate sex education, the message that they convey is no. One in 10 young girls admits to being given no education about periods before they occur, and there is a well-established void in terms of sex education available to boys, who bear at least half the responsibility for conception.
Of course, not just sex education is necessary. Conception in the case of those under 16 depends on the number of young people who are having sex, the number who are using contraceptives and the number who are using them effectively. What is required is education, along with advice and free and confidential access to that advice.
The problem has been dealt with much better on the continent. Teenagers in both the Netherlands and Scandinavia have wide access to early, clear sex education. Not only do those countries have the lowest rate of teenage conceptions in Europe, and also the lowest rate of teenage abortions; in the Netherlands, on average young people become sexually active at a much later age. That shows that the delivery of education, and the empowerment of young people to resist pressure from others—including peer pressure—can deter them from engaging in under-age sex, which many of us, and probably all hon. Members, consider not to be good for them.
We in the House have a duty to be politically courageous. There are those who have other views, but I believe that it is incumbent on those of us who feel that there is a need to improve the sexual health of young people to give a lead. We should not be dissuaded by sensationalist media coverage, often by the very papers that use their pages to portray over-sexual images—particularly of women—aimed at young people.
We have to recognise that young people are exposed to sexuality through the media, through television, even through soap operas and through films. We live in a world where young teenagers are sexually active. We as legislators, as well as the medical profession, teachers and the nursing profession, have a duty to support those young people and to give them the education that they need.
My move is backed by the British Medical Association, which said in a statement:
The BMA Committee for Public Health, Medicine and Community Health supports efforts to ensure schools have effective sex and relationships education (SRE). We believe this is vital to meet the Government's stated aim of reducing the high number of teenage pregnancies in the UK. We urge the Government to express its support for SRE education in schools and increase funding for the school health service to assist with the provision of services for young people in schools.
Throughout the schools system, we require improved education. I commend the Bill to the House for that purpose.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: I oppose the Bill as a director of Childline, although I do not speak for Childline. I do so after much consideration, particularly, as my hon. Friends will know, since I take a very strict view that there should be an equal age of consent. I have voted for that in the House, but the Bill also relates to children in primary schools. We have to be careful to distinguish the fact that we are talking specifically about children, not young people.
There is an innocence to childhood that needs to be preserved and maintained. Beginning sex education—not relationship education—at key stage 1 goes a stage too far. Children should be taught about relationships from the beginning of their time in school—loving relationships, family relationships, relationships between friends—but sex education is not appropriate for a small child.
The present system seems about right. The Bill poses a number of questions. I do not for one moment question the integrity of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in introducing the Bill, but I worry about the consequences should it become law. It raises the question: what should the teachers teach? What should the content of such lessons be; and, indeed, who should teach it? What is "adequate"? Adequate for some parents may not be adequate at all for others. One culture may require one sort of teaching and another may require another. Again, we are talking about children of a very tender and vulnerable age.
I have another fear, which has arisen far too often in my work with Childline. When it is done wrongly—of course, one would hope that it would be done only correctly—such education can create peer pressure of its

own: peer pressure on children in the later years of primary school to enter into relationships with which they are ill prepared to cope. Such issues are, of course, difficult. It is right that the House should debate them, but difficult issues require judgments.
I worry about producing a situation where instructions from the centre go out to a huge range of primary schools. It will be arbitrary. All sorts of children and cultures are found in those schools. I ask myself: with children who are so young and sensitive, is that best handled by teachers?
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon cited the case of Childline. As a director, I have absolute knowledge of the cases that he cited about teenage pregnancies. We should all be worried about teenage pregnancies; they are a serious problem. In 1997–98, Childline took more than 7,000 calls on the subject. It was the fifth most common subject of calls from girls to Childline. We know that children as young as 12 are having sexual relationships, often unplanned and often secret. Pregnancy was the most common reason for calls from 14 and 15-year-old girls, but we have to remember that I am talking about teenage pregnancy, not primary school children's pregnancy.
Again, my worry is that we are tending to bring the age barrier down. It is different from the age of consent, where we are dealing with people who are of an appropriate age to enter into a relationship. Here we are dealing with something with which these young children are not equipped to deal.
Sex education is important, and sex is a complicated matter. Sex is tied up, as it should be, with relationships. It is simply inappropriate for primary school children to be sexually courageous. Such behaviour is not brave, but inappropriate.
Childline's work on the issue has highlighted the importance of teaching young children about relationships. Age-appropriate education should begin in primary school and continue as a child progresses through secondary school. However, there is a firm distinction between what children at primary school should be taught about relationships, and sex education—which should, quite rightly, be taught to children in secondary schools.
Secondary school programmes should be wide ranging, and discuss the problems and loving relationship that one may have in a sexual relationship with someone else. They should discuss the emotional aspects of relationships, and arm children with the means of resisting peer pressure. Secondary school programmes should advise children and young people on how and when to use contraception, and the responsibilities and implications of becoming a parent. However, such education should be for those who have reached the appropriate physical stage—which will, of course, vary from one individual to another. Moreover, Childline's figures on teenage pregnancies deal only with teenagers and not with primary school children.
I believe that the primary school environment is, crucially, about allowing children to emerge from innocence into their teenage years. However, I am also all for ensuring that the questions of lively young minds are answered. Sadly—it is sad only because of the accompanying loss of innocence—the days of telling 12 year-olds about the stork and all those other things are gone; but the change is also good, as effective sex


education will make for a healthier society. Nevertheless, a healthier society is not necessarily one in which our six and seven-year-olds are taught matters that may not yet be appropriate for them.
Children need to develop socially, but providing sex education at pre-school would be to go a step too far. I do not want to turn back the clocks—there never were "better days" in dealing with the issue—but believe that we should think about how our children should be taught in the future.
Children need a loving and caring environment, and parents must play a huge role in properly educating their children—which includes educating them about sex. I should prefer to teach my primary school-aged children about sex myself than to have a schoolteacher do it. However, not all parents will be able to provide that education to their children. In those cases, schools have an important role to play, and I believe that the Government's current system is about right.
The issue is as much about children's innocence as anything else. Although children have a right to sex education at the appropriate time, they also have a right to innocence. We would be surrendering that right all too easily if we supported the Bill, and that is why I oppose it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public busines):—

The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 47.

Division No. 161]
[3.53 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Austin, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Ballard, Jackie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Barron, Kevin
Efford, Clive


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F
Follett, Barbara


Berry, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Best, Harold
Gardiner, Barry


Blackman, Liz
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Godsiff, Roger


Borrow, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Bradshaw, Ben
Gunnell, John


Brake, Tom
Harris, Dr Evan


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Casale, Roger
Jones, Ms Jenny


Clapham, Michael
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Keetch, Paul


Clwyd, Ann
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Coleman, Iain
Laxton, Bob


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lepper, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Levitt, Tom


Crausby, David
Livingstone, Ken


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McDonnell, John





Mactaggart, Fiona
Sawford, Phil


McWalter, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Balfast S)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mitchell, Austin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Moffatt, Laura
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Vis, Dr Rudi


Mountford, Kali
Watts, David


Mullin, Chris
Whiteheadm, Dr Alan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Palmer, Dr Nick
(Swansea W)


Pickthall, Colin
Willis, Phil


Plaskitt, James
Winnick, David


Pond, Chris
Wise, Audrey


Pound, Stephen
Wood, Mike


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wyatt, Derek


Rapson, Syd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruane, Chris
Dr. Howard Stoate and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Dr. Jenny Tonge.




NOES


Amess, David
Hayes, John


Bercow, John
Heald, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brazier, Julian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lidington, David


(Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
McNulty, Tony


(Rushcliffe)
Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Ottaway, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Randall, John


Cran, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Swayne, Desmond


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Syms, Robert


& Howden)
Walter, Robert


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Waterson, Nigel


Drew, David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Duncan Smith, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Fearn, Ronnie
Woodward, Shaun


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Fraser, Christopher



Garnier, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Gray, James
Mr. Andrew Robathan and


Hammond, Philip
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Jackie Ballard, Dr. Lynne Jones, Dr. Peter Brand, Dr. Vincent Cable, Dr. Howard Stoate, Dr. Ian Gibson, Audrey Wise, Mrs. Diana Organ and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS

Dr. Evan Harris accordingly presented a Bill to introduce an entitlement for all children to receive sex and relationships education in schools from key stage one onwards; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 94].

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Madam Speaker: The House may like to know at this stage that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to be debated on Third Reading.

Clause 2

MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSEMBLY

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 2, line 32, leave out 'or (6)'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 94 to 98, 108A and 99 to 101.

Mr. Raynsford: Part I of the Bill establishes the new Greater London Authority and the systems by which the mayor and assembly are to be elected. The model of government set out in part I, and throughout the Bill, is a radical one. There will be a new strategic authority—headed by a directly elected mayor and democratically accountable to the people of London—to tackle problems and co-ordinate action on a citywide basis.
The voting systems that we are putting in place will underpin that new model of government. They will help to deliver a strong executive mayor with a clear mandate from the people of London, and an assembly that can hold the mayor to account and is inclusive and representative of London as a whole.
The elections to the authority will be treated as local authority elections for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act 1983, except where the new electoral systems that we are proposing make existing local government provisions impractical or inappropriate for authority elections.
Where changes are needed, I have been keen to adopt a bipartisan approach. I have written to the main Opposition parties on several electoral issues in order to achieve a consensus, as far as possible. I hope that we can maintain this constructive approach as the Bill moves to another place. That is our intention in the amendments, which respond to various issues raised by Opposition Members in Committee.
Amendments Nos. 93 to 101 provide for the date of the first ordinary elections to the authority to be specified in the Bill. Hon. Members who served in Committee will recall that I wrote to them on 15 April, setting out details of the amendments that I proposed to make to clause 3. I trust that hon. Members of all parties are satisfied that the amendments meet the commitments that we made in Committee to reconsider the provisions.
I made it clear in Committee that we were prepared to consider amendments to write the date of the first elections—4 May 2000—into the Bill, with appropriate provision to enable the elections to be delayed in

exceptional circumstances, such as disaster or civil emergency. The amendments achieve that. Also, and in the light of the views expressed in Committee, I have concluded that the provisions of clause 3(2), which empower the Secretary of State to designate the years of the second and third elections by order, are unnecessary. Ordinary elections to the authority will therefore follow in a clear four-year cycle from 4 May 2000.
Amendment No. 108A is a technical amendment to clause 18, which provides for the Secretary of State to make payments in respect of the first ordinary elections from the Consolidated Fund. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the Secretary of State must, in preparing an account for the sums issued to him from the Consolidated Fund, state in that account what he has done with the sums received. As I have said, this is a technical amendment to ensure that arrangements for payments from the Consolidated Fund are in line with other legislation in that area, and I ask the House to support it.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: As the amendments are very similar to some tabled by Conservative Members in Committee, we have no trouble with them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I echo entirely the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). We made those points in Committee and the Government have been accommodating; we are grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

SECTION 4

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 166, line 29, leave out 'the prescribed percentage' and insert '5 per cent.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 137 and 138.

Mr. Raynsford: These amendments put on the face of the Bill a fixed electoral threshold of 5 per cent. for the election of Londonwide assembly members. I recognise that this is a sensitive issue, which was the subject of considerable debate in the Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House in January. Because of that, and in the light of recent events, I will take a few moments to restate precisely why we consider a threshold to be necessary, and why we have decided that it should appear on the face of the Bill and not be subject to order-making provisions as originally proposed.

Mr. John Wilkinson: What does the Minister mean by "in the light of recent events"?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot be unaware of the shocking events in London in the past three weeks. I should have thought that all hon. Members would recognise the real concern about people who, for whatever reason, seek to stir up racial hatred or hatred against any section of the community. This is not a matter


that any political party can take lightly. We consider that, in the context of the proportional electoral system that we propose for the assembly, a threshold is a necessary safeguard against the possibility of extremist parties or candidates gaining a toehold in our democratic processes having won only a very small proportion of the vote. Once established, extremists and their views could begin to receive a disproportionate amount of publicity, and the corrosive effect of those views on local communities would in turn begin to have a disproportionate effect.
Of course, no threshold can be an absolute safeguard against parties or candidates who represent extreme views. In the unlikely circumstances of such a candidate winning more than 5 per cent. of the vote, that candidate would win a London member seat. But if we assume a 50 per cent. turnout, that would require a party or individual candidate to win approximately 125,000 votes from across the whole of London.
As members of the Committee pointed out, there are significant drawbacks attached to the setting of such thresholds in that they will not discriminate between the good, the bad and the ugly of minority opinion. Consequently, in seeking to prevent the bad and the ugly, we run the risk of denying a seat to parties or individuals pursuing worthy or worthwhile minority interests, who may also fail to exceed the threshold and who might otherwise have won a seat. We must, therefore, ask whether that is a price worth paying. I believe that it is.
A threshold—for all its imperfections—is a bulwark intended to deny a platform to those who, among other things, peddle race hatred, who spread fear among our citizens and seek to undermine our democratic system. That is why we have decided that this measure must be included in the Bill.
4.15 pm
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and I made clear in Committee, we wanted to consider the views expressed by the Committee, and others, before taking a final decision about how this policy should be implemented. Having done so, I wrote to the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 8 March, indicating that I now favoured dispensing with the Secretary of State's discretion to vary by order the level of the threshold, and seeking their views. I am pleased to be able to report that they have responded positively to my proposal.
I believe that, with the threshold specified on the face of the Bill, parties and candidates will know and understand exactly how the fundamental features of the elections that they are contesting will work, and what they will therefore need to achieve to become members of the assembly.
Any threshold is to some extent arbitrary. I know that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has done some research which shows that levels of thresholds vary from system to system across Europe and beyond. However, 5 per cent. is a clear and readily understood figure, which is well precedented. It was established in the German federal system, which the British Government had some part in setting up after the second world war. In that country, the threshold has provided an effective bulwark against the resurgence of

Nazi or fascist tendencies, although it has not prevented the minority views of parties such as the Green party from gaining representation through the democratic process.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has raised with me the question of whether the threshold should in future be referred to some independent and impartial body for advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are proposing to establish an electoral commission, one of whose functions will be to keep under review, and advise on, the modernisation of electoral law.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I agree that the commission could usefully in future years consider what the effect of the threshold has been and the extent to which it has affected the outcome of the elections. The commission will therefore have a role in advising the Government on the threshold.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his serious consideration of that matter. The electoral commission will examine the effects historically of the threshold introduced by the Bill, but will it be able to make a recommendation about the appropriateness of continuing with it in elections in London or elsewhere?

Mr. Raynsford: As the commission is not in existence, it would be premature of me to anticipate its powers. However, I have given the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought, which is that we believe that this is a matter that could and should be referred to the electoral commission. We must trust the commission to decide how best to respond. I have no doubt that, if recommendations are considered appropriate, the commission will wish to make them. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me to flesh out his thinking on this matter in more detail, I should be happy to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
This is a serious and important matter which the House should consider with care. The Government have considered the issues and reflected on the views expressed in Committee. We have discussed our proposals with the principal Opposition parties, and we believe that the proposals that we are making now are right.

Mr. Ottaway: We expressed our concerns about the threshold proposal some months ago, in the Committee deliberations on the Floor of the House. We were worried that minority views—such as those of the Green party—could be shut out. If 4.5 per cent. of London wants an extreme candidate—of the left, the right or the environmental lobby—there is an argument that asks why those people should not be able to vote for such a candidate.
The events of recent weeks have persuaded Conservative Members that the argument lacks merit. I accept that the arrest—and it is no more than that at this stage—over the weekend of a gentleman in connection with the recent nail bombings suggests that they were not the work of an extreme group. I suspect that that was the thinking behind the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Nevertheless, the series of outrages raised again the spectre of extremism in London—it tends to be in London—and we must address that in setting out the political arrangements for elections to the London
authority. While most people talk about this as a matter of groups on the extreme right, most civil disobedience in London in recent years has been from the extreme left. I am thinking in particular of the miners' strike and the poll tax rioters.
With some reservations, we support the amendment, but the Minister must answer two questions. First, he must explain to those who still have doubts why someone's extreme views are abhorrent if he gets 4.5 per cent. of the vote but acceptable at 5.5 per cent. Secondly, can he confirm that a repeat of the Greater London council election result of 1977, when the British National party polled 5.3 per cent., would mean that it would get someone elected to the new assembly? Where it put up candidates in 1994, the BNP polled 18.2 per cent. of the vote, and in 1998, 7 per cent. So it is possible that extreme candidates will be elected to the authority despite the amendment.
That highlights the weakness of proportional representation. If the Government feel that there is a threat, the solution is to rethink in the other place whether it is the right form of electoral system for London. The greatest weakness of proportional representation is the disproportionate power that it gives minority parties and the fact that it allows into office parties whose views most democrats find unacceptable. The answer is to return to first past the post for the London authority.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I am delighted that the Government have tabled this amendment, which I called for on Second Reading on 14 December. Many of my constituents have been anxious over the past few weeks after the London bombings. I have in my constituency mosques, Hindu temples, gurdwaras and synagogues. I have ethnic minorities from all over the world and thousands of refugees. The people of Ilford are united in resolute opposition to all forms of racism and fascism. They have good reason, because many of them—or their grandparents or parents—came to this country fleeing fascism, racism and xenophobia.
I was therefore surprised by the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I thought that he was arguing that 5 per cent. discriminated against the Greens and that it would be good if they were elected even with only 3 or 4 per cent. However, he also seemed to argue against the electoral system that would make that possible. I am no great fan of proportional representation. I am a fan of electoral reform, but we can discuss that another time. Once we have agreed an assembly, we have to make a judgment. Do we wish to allow any party that can get a minimum vote to be represented, or does democracy require vigilance and safeguards against extremist, undemocratic, racist and xenophobic parties? I make no apology for believing that democracy must be defended against its enemies. One defence is a threshold to prevent the parties that peddle race hate, xenophobia and anti-semitic propaganda from getting a platform to start their insidious progress in electoral systems, but there is no guarantee.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South may be right that 10, 15 or 20 years ago, some such parties might have gained a foothold. They were not standing everywhere in London, of course. They might have had concentrated pockets of support in some local authorities but that would

have been offset in other areas, including my own borough, where their support would have been extremely low. On an all-London basis, I suggest that a threshold of about 5 per cent. might be appropriate. However, if there were any suggestion that those racist parties—peddling hatred and extremism—which are anti-democratic in their practice and their propaganda would achieve a breakthrough, it would be quite right to have a threshold higher than 5 per cent.

Mr. Ottaway: May I clarify the matter? In the 1977 GLC elections, the National Front put up candidates in every GLC constituency and received 119,000 votes, which was 5.3 per cent. That is very close to the figure of 120,000 given by the Minister. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) seems to be arguing for a threshold that is higher than 5 per cent.

Mr. Gapes: I should be happier with a threshold that was higher than 5 per cent., but I am happy to support that threshold rather than for there to be no threshold at all. We must stand firm against the possibility that the Greater London Authority will provide a platform for racist, fascist, neo-Nazi parties.
Reference was made to electoral systems in other countries. In Israel, where elections are to be held on 17 May, there are 120 Members of the Knesset and 33 parties are standing for election. The largest party in the Knesset has between 25 and 30 Members, and the second-largest party—at present that is the Government party—has 18 Members. Without a suitable threshold, there may be problems of coalition building and building alliances, whereby, for example, some extremist rabbi based in New York may determine which party forms the Government in Israel. We do not want the situation to arise in London where an eccentric, mad or extremist group could hold the balance of power in the authority and demand, from an extreme platform, the support of the other parties to ensure their majority. That would be extremely dangerous, and we need the 5 per cent. threshold to keep such people out.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I stand to be corrected, but I understand that Israel has a threshold of between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent.

Mr. Gapes: That is correct, but extremist parties can still hold the balance of power, so the threshold is obviously too low.
My final point is that, even with a first-past-the-post electoral system, there is no guarantee that extremist parties will not gain support. We know from experience that, from time to time, extremists have tried to infiltrate political parties for their own purposes. That has happened to the Conservatives, to the Labour party and also to the Liberal Democrats. I am not trying to make a party political point here; I am making the general point that it happens in all parties. From the history of the Liberal Democrats, I could give a list of places—Birmingham, Tower Hamlets and elsewhere. I could talk about some of the problems for the Labour party in some parts of the country. I could talk about Brentwood and the current problems of the Conservative party.
We must continue to be vigilant about the democratic structures in all our political parties; we must have real democratic vitality, so that when we put candidates up


for election, they are standing for democratic values. We must not allow extremist anti-democratic elements to gain a foothold in the democratic system. That is why I welcome the amendments and I strongly urge the House to give them overwhelming support.

Mr. Wilkinson: When it comes to electoral systems, it astonishes me that rational, reasonable people who pride themselves on their liberalism display a degree of authoritarianism that seems quite alien to their normal behaviour. We have seen, even in our own experience, periods in which we have proscribed Sinn Fein and forbidden its representatives' utterances. Now, Sinn Fein has elected representatives in Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly contains representatives of minority loyalist groups that were previously thought diabolically evil because they supported those who pursued the defence of the Union by terrorist means. Surely, the experience almost universally has been that it is much better to allow representatives of small parties—even those whose views appear extreme at the time—to have a democratic platform on which to utter those views, for if they are driven out on to the streets and frustrated, they are far more likely to pursue their ends by violence than if they are accommodated within the normal body politic.
The Government amendments betray the deficiencies of the d'Hondt system of proportional representation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) made clear. If we accept them, we might not only be excluding small parties, some of which are not necessarily extremist at all. Large parties, like large companies, have their origins in small organisations. Parties have to be small at one stage of their political development—the early, initial stage—and it is reasonable for such parties to aspire to have representatives on the new Londonwide assembly. Why should they be forbidden from pursuing that objective to success—the election of a representative, or conceivably more than one—by the imposition of an artificial threshold?
The threshold would affect parties within the mainstream, such as the Greens and many others, and regional parties which want to pursue the interests of individual parts of our capital city. It is likely that certain groups will feel that the grouping together of boroughs into ultra-large constituencies does not give them the opportunity to ensure that their area's particular interests are represented on the assembly. Such groups—say, the Middlesex preservation party, or some other such party—will have to pursue their interests through the list of Londonwide elected assembly men, but they will find themselves frustrated by the provisions of the amendment.
I understand the sentiment behind the drafting of the amendments and I comprehend Her Majesty's Government's feeling that they have a power of ethical judgment that most of us would not and do not presume to possess. We would leave that judgment to the electorate, because we believe in a democratic society. Our electors are fully capable of judging the qualities of those whom they elect to representative office, and who are we to put artificial barriers in their way?
I conclude, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, that the amendment demonstrates, perhaps more clearly than any provision of the Bill,

the fundamental flaws of the d'Hondt system of proportional representation. We never had such a problem when our elections took place entirely according to the first-past-the-post principle, but because we are to have an extraordinary combination of first past the post for ultra-large constituencies, which will probably not satisfy the electoral aspirations of all Londoners, and the d'Hondt system for the assembly men, we need the amendment. The amendment is anti-democratic; it will never satisfy everyone; and it will be the source of much criticism in future.

Ms Linda Perham: I support the Government amendments, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction that the price is worth paying. I might also support the imposition of a higher threshold, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).
My hon. Friend mentioned the diverse population in the Ilford area. My constituency of Ilford, North has perhaps the largest Jewish population in western Europe. A few weeks ago, there were celebrations for Israel's independence day and remembrance ceremonies for people killed in the holocaust and in the struggle to establish the state of Israel. Fortunately, the Jewish population was not targeted in the recent bombings. Despite the fact that someone has been arrested for those bombings, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, that has not stopped a plethora of neo-Nazi groups claiming responsibility for the outrages. We must remain vigilant.
There is also a growing Asian population in my constituency, and Sikhs celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa at the weekend. Many Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian people also live in the Ilford area, all of whom were extremely concerned about the recent outrages.
As I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I was reminded of the words of Baroness Thatcher. When Sinn Fein representatives were banned from speaking in this country, she referred to the "oxygen of publicity". I would not like to give the oxygen of publicity to extremist groups for whatever reason, which is why I support the Government's amendment.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Perham: I have concluded my speech.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for the consultation that the Government have afforded us and the Conservative party since the debate on the Floor of the House in January this year. As a consequence of that debate, hon. Members will be aware that we must reach agreement about this matter and proceed cautiously. This is the first legislative proposal for a threshold in British politics and, before we go down that road, we must be absolutely clear that we can justify its establishment—if, indeed, we can do so.
I believe that we must start from the position espoused by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who said that we normally should not have to impose thresholds in electoral systems. People should be able to


stand for election and express their views within the law. If they break the law—by inciting racial hatred, for example—they should be prosecuted and, if convicted, banned from taking part in the electoral process. As I said, on the Floor the House, and in the Standing Committee, my colleagues have adopted that view as our starting point.
The Government have moved from their initial proposition that the Secretary of State of the day should decide the nature of the threshold to stating that threshold in the Bill. That is a definite improvement. If there is to be a threshold, it should be stated in legislation so that people can vote for or against it. That decision should not be left to a Minister who—regardless of his or her best intentions now or in the future—must be subject to political influence. If we are to have a threshold, it should be stated clearly on the face of the Bill so that this House, and the other place in a few weeks' time, can vote for it or against it, or amend it. It should not be left to a Minister to take a decision over which the House can exert no influence.

Mr. Bercow: Would it not be more honest if those who advocated that the threshold should be set deliberately at whatever level is necessary to prevent the election of extremist candidates simply advocated the disqualification of such candidates from standing?

Mr. Hughes: That is one way of approaching the issue. Another way is requiring a large number of people to propose candidature. The Green party has stated that that should be the method of testing whether a proposal or candidate has sufficient electoral support. That is perfectly usual; it is done in other countries, and in this country in some contexts. We need to debate that issue.
I now come to my second point. The Government's proposal for the electoral system for London—it is new for London, and there are similar new systems elsewhere—is that there will be a balance between single-member constituencies and a list. One of the proposal's redeeming features is the fact that it does not eliminate for all elections a person's right to stand and reach the threshold.
The threshold will apply only to the list, not to single-member seats. It allows any party that is registered as a political party, and any individual, to stand on a Londonwide basis, and allows any party to field candidates in every single-member seat, from whatever shade of the political spectrum they come. The law will therefore allow extreme right-wing parties, extreme left-wing parties or any others to take part in the process; they are not proscribed. From our viewpoint, that is a redeeming feature, because it does not carve out a load of people.
I now come to my third point. The Minister was kind enough to say that the concern that my colleagues and I had expressed was that, for the first time—it has not been done in Scotland or Wales; it is only being done in London—we were considering a threshold in the absence of objective advice, other than our own historical data and comparative figures from abroad, as to whether it was necessary or a good idea. That was why I put to the Minister the proposition, which he kindly took on board, that, at the earliest opportunity, the matter should be referred to someone independent of the politicians, who would give advice.
I tell the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and other Conservative Members who might argue the case that he did, that the Liberal Democrats will support the proposition that a threshold should be specified in the Bill only on the basis that the matter can be referred to the electoral commission as soon as it is set up. Moreover, we do not agree to that proposition for anything other than next year's elections, unless the commission's advice, and the debate that follows its publication, justifies the retention of that threshold. We are nervous about the idea of a threshold; we do not like it, and it certainly should not continue to remain part of British law without independent authority. We must be able to justify the threshold for now, but my colleagues will support it only for now.
Does the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) want to intervene again?

Mr. Bercow: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister was right to mention the fact that my colleagues and I, with our advisers, did some work to discover what precedent there was. The Minister for Transport in London was kind enough to write to me on the subject. Thresholds do exist in electoral systems elsewhere in Europe, and in Israel. The lowest is about 2 per cent.; the highest is 5 per cent.
I counsel those Labour Members who call for a higher threshold against the very anti-democratic view that creating the highest threshold in the democratic world is justified by anything that might cause them concern in their constituency, or that might cause me concern in mine. One does not advance the cause of democracy and participation by suppressing groups of people, even if they may have political views that the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and I might dislike and always oppose.

Mr. Gapes: The hon. Gentleman implied that I was proposing to suppress people. I am not; such people could still stand for election and campaign within the law. However, I believe that democracy must be defended and that we must be vigilant. I suspect that, if people in Germany were to think about the way in which Hitler came to power in 1933, they might, in retrospect, reconsider those electoral arrangements—although I understand that that was not a proportional system. We must all learn from history. I believe that, in the British context, we would be wise, after adopting a 5 per cent. threshold, to monitor the way in which it works. If it causes us problems, we should return to it, not in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but in the other direction, which is to defend democracy against its enemies.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman would be quite entitled to put to the electoral commission his proposition that it should consider a 10 per cent. threshold. However, that would be without precedent anywhere in the world, and he cannot persuade me that other countries do not have the same mix of races, backgrounds, religions and creeds that would—in Europe—have required them to consider the matter. We never imposed 10 per cent. on Germany.
In case the hon. Gentleman raises a small point later, the only place where a 10 per cent. threshold applies is where there is a two-week electoral process, such as in


the French elections, where one vote is held one week and another is held a second week. In France, and only in France, and in Paris and only in Paris, there is a 10 per cent. threshold to enter the second round of the elections, for the second week. Those are the only circumstances in which a 10 per cent. threshold is used.
4.45 pm
We would be extremely unhappy with the proposition that, because a threshold is acceptable once, and because, for exceptional reasons, we might agree that 5 per cent. is right, we must go on looking ever upward. A higher threshold is likely to affect bona fide democratic parties such as the Green party far more seriously than it would affect people who are interested in politics as a means of inciting others against their fellow citizens.

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is intellectually honest, but is not the perverse and wholly unsatisfactory effect of the provision that, instead of the seat being left vacant because the party did not achieve the threshold, another party would be over-represented? By the provision, we are choosing to secure the election of a representative who would not otherwise, by the number of votes that he scored, have secured election.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
The last concern that I intended to express, which was the subject of one of our debates, was whether we could have left the threshold to be arrived at from the fact that there would be 11 top-up members of the Greater London assembly, which would require a mathematical threshold to be achieved. The figure is about 3.8 per cent. I did not sign up to that view, nor did Ministers, because that threshold is entirely dependent on the number of members. If there are 25 members, the threshold is 3.8 per cent. With 40 members, the threshold is lower. To determine the threshold purely on the basis of the size of the assembly struck us as arbitrary and much more difficult to defend.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood is right. If the percentages are altered and the threshold is set at 5 per cent., the division across London is not as clear. My hon. Friends and I are prepared to agree with the other two major parties that, on this occasion—and as far as we are concerned, on this occasion only—there should be a threshold, because, when London's government is reinstated after 14 years, we do not want the first election for it to be detracted from by people who are interested not in the government of London, but in peddling their own partisan and divisive views.
We must not jump to conclusions after the events of the past few days. One person has been arrested, who may have nothing to do with extreme right-wing views. The measures proposed can be justified only by the sweep of history, not by recent events. From time to time in London, more frequently than elsewhere, the electoral system has been used by people who were clearly divisive, racist and extremist. For the first election, we must protect the process from being hijacked by that agenda.
I hope that such a measure will not be necessary in future, but I am happy to take the advice of the electoral commission before we as a Parliament and, I hope, as individual Members of Parliament, make the decision.

This should in any event be a matter for the individual votes of individual Members, not a whipped vote. If the proposal goes to the vote, I hope that the Whips will not be employed.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I add my support to the Government's decision to introduce the threshold into the forthcoming elections. I accept that it was a difficult decision. Cogent arguments have been articulated in Committee, outside this place and in the Chamber today about the validity of various tactics and methods for dealing with extremist views and defeating them.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that no threshold is likely to eliminate or deter extremist views or, indeed, can guarantee exclusion of extremist candidates, as we have seen from recent electoral history in London, when such candidates got a higher vote than the threshold that is being laid down. However, after witnessing at first hand the victory of the British National party on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency and having seen the climate created there—which lead to intimidation, fear, alienation and hostility in Tower Hamlets and throughout the east end—I am strongly persuaded that everything possible should be done to prevent any repetition.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked, "Who are we to make such an arbitrary artificial decision?" With the greatest respect, we are the elected political leadership and we are obliged to give our society a political lead. Some people may perceive the provision as a gesture; it is an important signal that there should be no place in our society for those whose ideology is to discriminate against a minority or minority groups. We are a pluralistic society now, and the House has a responsibility to demonstrate that by saying that we are introducing the threshold to prevent those extremist views from taking hold.
This has been a difficult decision for the Government. Following discussions in Committee, which have been repeated here today, and outside this place, strong views both for and against have been expressed. As one who supports the first-past-the-post system, I take the view—I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—that we need to ensure that this new electoral system and structure for London send a signal to the London public that we are creating a new democracy and a new government for London and that this is our society, which will be inclusive for all its elements.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall make two brief points. First, while I do not agree with the electoral system proposed for elections to the Greater London assembly, given the system that has been proposed, I utterly support the Minister in making the threshold 5 per cent. I note that, while paragraph 7(3) of schedule 2 proposes that the Secretary of State should have a prescriptive power to decide the percentage, paragraph 7(4) states that it should not be greater than 5 per cent. Therefore, the Minister is announcing a threshold at the upper end of what was presumably envisaged by the Government. I accept that.
Secondly, I think that the Minister said that, if there were a 50 per cent. turnout—I very much hope that there will be, although I will be agreeably surprised if there is—


the 5 per cent. threshold would require a party to have of the order of 125,000 or 150,000 votes. Frankly, and this is where I may disagree with one or two Labour Members, no matter how obnoxious the policies of a party, if it gets 100,000 votes in the election on 4 May next year, it can reasonably claim to have a stake in the assembly. I do not want to rehearse or overstress this point, but we may find that we get more trouble if people are barred from being members of an assembly, or Members of Parliament, by structures that are deliberately devised to keep them out. If a fair threshold is set and they get in, so be it.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick)—I may not agree with his views, but I deeply respect them—that a member of the BNP may have got in in a London borough or local authority election, but we are not seriously considering changing the electoral and the ward system on that account for our borough elections. We have to be robust about the obnoxious nature of some parties, but, if they get beyond a reasonable threshold, they are perfectly entitled to representation, in this case in the Greater London assembly.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: We should look at the narrow point at issue in terms of numbers of votes cast. We are introducing a threshold which means that a fascist party will have to get 5 per cent. of the votes to qualify for a seat. We know from the 1977 GLC election, when the British National party contested all seats across London and got 5.3 per cent. of the vote, that that is an achievable objective for a fascist party in this country. If we did not impose a threshold, a party would still need to win 4 per cent. of the vote to get a seat. Given 25 seats, it would need to get 4 per cent., unless a vast number of minor parties got 2 or 3 per cent. each. So we are drawing a small margin of difference.
Across Europe, it is not unusual now for fascist parties to get 15 per cent. of the vote. There have been breakthroughs in France and Austria. To guarantee to keep the fascists out for all time, we would most probably have to set the threshold at 15 per cent. or more and that would also eliminate the Liberal Democrats in many areas. When I first entered local government in London, the Liberals did not get 5 per cent. in the borough council elections Londonwide. So we are working ourselves up over the wrong issue.
It worries me that people could use candidacy as a platform to propagate their racist views. We should consider what to do to prevent that. My fear is about what may have motivated the young man who has been arrested for the bombings. He was not linked into an organised fascist party, but the contagion of fascist views had reached him. What worries me most is not the threshold—whether the 4 per cent. without a bar or the 5 per cent. bar that we are introducing—but the fact that the new election for mayor could give a fascist candidate access to broadcasts and a big distribution of literature which, while with clever lawyers working on it may narrowly stay within the race relations law, would pander to racism, homophobia and bigotry and help to stir up the sort of passions that have led to deaths on the streets of London in the past few days.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had a full, extensive and good debate on a difficult and extremely important issue. Hon. Members have covered a wide range of points, to which I shall respond briefly.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who spoke for the official Opposition, asked why a party that got 4.5 per cent. should not be elected when one that got 5.5 per cent. would be. In my opening remarks, I made the point that any threshold is, by its nature, arbitrary, but there are precedents. We had much to do with the imposition of a 5 per cent. threshold in the constitution established in Germany after the war to provide a bulwark against a resurgence of national socialism. That has been seen to work effectively without precluding opportunities for smaller parties such as the Greens to be elected. So there are good reasons for the threshold. While I accept that it is arbitrary, it is right that we should have safeguards against parties that set out to destroy and damage the electoral process and, above all, to stir up hatred against different sections of the community.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that, in certain circumstances, the extreme right wing could be elected. I accept that, on the 1977 GLC election results, it would have secured a place on a 5.3 per cent. overall vote. It is not our objective to prevent a party from being elected. In setting a threshold, we seek to send a clear message that a party has to establish a substantial body of support among the electorate before it will secure a place in the electoral system. In general, the extreme racist right in this country has not achieved that substantial proportion. The figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted for 1994 and 1998 were, he will accept, from relatively small areas rather than pan-London figures.
5 pm
The hon. Gentleman argued that the fundamental problem was the system of proportional representation, and that the amendment was necessary only because we were proposing such a system. In fact, the only recent example of an extreme right-winger and racist being elected was in Millwall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). He was elected in a 1993 by-election under the first-past-the-post system. Extreme right-wingers can be elected even under a first-past-the-post system in certain circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly stressed that democracy must be defended against its enemies. He pointed out that previous experience showed that support for the National Front and the British National party tends to be localised, and that, in the present circumstances, such a party would be unlikely to secure a 5 per cent. vote across London as a whole.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of the risk of excluding reputable smaller parties. I have already partly answered that question by saying that the 5 per cent. threshold in the German constitution has not prevented the Greens from securing election. Conversely—this is not the fault of the d'Hondt system, which I know the hon. Gentleman does not like—in the 1990 European elections, the Greens in this country did very well in terms of the proportion of the vote, securing something approaching 15 per cent., but did not manage to get a single member elected.


The first-past-the-post system can and does exclude small parties that have a legitimate place in the democratic system. All that adds to the complexity of the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) mentioned the concerns of communities—in her case, the Jewish population in her constituency, but also the Sikhs and the Bangladeshis—which have been understandably alarmed by the threats made in recent weeks by hard-line extremist parties claiming responsibility for bomb attacks, although they turned out not to be responsible. We should bear in mind that bodies such as Combat 18 have been only too pleased to use the circumstances of the past three weeks to promote their own deplorable attitudes.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the issue should be considered very carefully, because this was the first occasion on which we had proposed a threshold. I remind him, and the House, that we are doing so because no electoral system has previously been proposed making it possible for a party to secure election on the basis of a relatively small proportion of the vote. In both the Scottish and the Welsh frameworks, which involve the additional member system and a list top-up, the percentage necessary to secure membership through the list is very much higher than that which will apply in Greater London. The hon. Gentleman himself made the point that London has had rather more of its fair share of experience of the activities of the extreme racist parties. That is why we are proposing a threshold.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have thought carefully about this. We have not jumped rapidly to conclusions. We initially proposed that the Secretary of State should be given power to set a threshold but, on reflection, we concluded that it was right to put a threshold in the Bill. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and that of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for our decision. I also confirm our decision, in response to a request from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, to refer the matter to the electoral commission so that there will be an independent review of the process.
Let me say to both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that, in practice, the mathematical threshold is 3.85 per cent.: a party that secures that percentage of the vote is guaranteed a member through the top-up list. In certain circumstances, however—I admit that they are not necessarily normal circumstances—it would be possible for a party to be elected with significantly less than that percentage. Figures that were prepared for us while we were considering the matter demonstrated that a party could secure a member through the top-up list system with a vote of less than 3 per cent. That is where the real worries come into play. That is why it is appropriate that there should be a threshold. In practice, it will not be only marginally higher than the natural threshold, as was implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. Five per cent. is a substantially higher hurdle to get over than, say, 2.5 per cent., which could, in certain circumstances, be the mathematical threshold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town rightly referred to the fears and anxieties that were felt by the Bengali community in Blackwall after the British National party secured the election of a candidate

in a 1993 by-election. I visited Blackwall frequently during those months and played a small part in organising the campaign to ensure that that particular pedlar of race hatred was evicted in the subsequent 1994 council election.
I am delighted that the democratic process triumphed and that the BNP was rejected in 1994. I pay tribute to all the decent people in the Blackwall community who came together in adversity to ensure that democracy and decent values prevailed against the BNP and the pedlars of hatred, but I have not forgotten the fears and anxieties that I experienced at the time. I have not forgotten the sight of thugs—one can describe them by no other word—marching in a bully-boy way through the streets of a community that is largely populated by Bengalis, deliberately stirring up hatred and fear.
We cannot allow such spectacles in our society. We have a duty and responsibility to take action to prevent our democracy from being subverted by people who have no commitment to it at all and who use the opportunity of a democratic election to undermine all the democratic values, values of decency and good relations between races that are fundamental to our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town referred to the new democratic system that we are putting in place and emphasised how important it is that it is inclusive. I cannot do anything other than concur entirely with his views.
I have already referred to the support of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for our decision to put a threshold in the Bill; I am grateful for his support. He made the point that a party that can secure 125,000 votes deserves a voice. That is the effect of what we are proposing. A party that secures about 125,000 votes will secure a voice; below that, it will not.
As I have said, it is, to some extent, an arbitrary figure, but there are good precedents for the 5 per cent. It seems to us to be a reasonable level. It will establish that a party that cannot secure that level of support among the electorate as a whole does not get the opportunity to voice its views, obnoxious as they may be, through the Greater London assembly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East referred to the natural threshold. I have explained that it is 3.85 per cent., but can be lower. That is the justification for a 5 per cent. threshold. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that, in Europe, the extreme right has secured much higher percentage figures in polls. I agree. That is one of the great lessons that we have to learn. It is not a cause for complacency, but, in the past 50 years, we in this country have been fortunate in ensuring that the views of extreme right-wing and racist parties have not built the sort of bridgehead that has been possible in other countries, including France.
We must remain constantly vigilant against the threat, which can do enormous damage to good community relations and democracy. I believe that the threshold that we are putting in place will contribute to the process.
I remind hon. Members that it was this country that contributed to the establishment of the threshold in Germany in the post-war era. In many respects, that has proved successful as a bulwark against the resurgence of extremist, racist views in Germany, which has seen more of that than any other country in Europe this century. Therefore, we must be serious and careful. What the


Government are proposing is appropriate. It is a step taken, not lightly but with considerable care and after consultation. I hope that the House will endorse the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 166, leave out lines 35 to 37.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Schedule 3

AMENDMENTS OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 174, line 38, at end insert—
'Broadcasting during elections
21A.—(1) Section 93 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "local government election" there shall be inserted ", other than an Authority election,".'.
Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that I wrote to them on 4 March, setting out my intention to disapply section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 for the purposes of the GLA elections. As I said in an earlier debate, elections to the authority will be treated as local authority elections for the purposes of the RPA, except when our proposed new electoral systems make current local government provisions impractical or inappropriate.
When changes are needed—as, for example, in broadcasting regulation at elections—I have been keen, as on other issues, to adopt a bipartisan approach. I have written to the main Opposition parties on a number of electoral issues, so that we might achieve—so far as possible—a consensus.
Hon. Members will recall that section 93 stipulates that an item cannot be broadcast during an election campaign without the consent of all the candidates in a particular constituency. As I said in my letter to Committee members, it would be completely impractical—given the arrangements for election, across the whole of London, of assembly members on the top-up list—to apply those provisions, as only one candidate would have to refuse consent for there to be no possibility of a broadcast. Such a situation would be nonsensical.
An approach similar to the one that we are proposing was adopted, after consultation with the parties, for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Equally, section 93 will not apply to elections to the European Parliament.
Amendment No. 102 is essential to ensure that workable arrangements can be put in place for coverage of the elections. Broadcasting organisations will still be bound by the requirements of impartiality, accuracy and balance that are placed on them by statute and by the broadcasting regulatory bodies. It is a practical and sensible amendment, which I hope the House will accept.

Mr. Ottaway: The Opposition have no trouble with accepting Amendment No. 102, which makes the same provision as that included in the legislation establishing the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

However, what needs amendment is the Representation of the People Act 1983—not each individual Bill as it comes along.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

COST OF HOLDING THE FIRST ORDINARY ELECTIONS.

Amendment made: No. 108A, in page 10, line 25, leave out from 'prepare' to 'required' in line 27 and insert
'an account of any sums which are issued to him out of the Consolidated Fund by virtue of this section and of his use of those sums.

(6) The account'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 19

QUALIFICATION TO BE THE MAYOR OR AN ASSEMBLY MEMBER.

Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 105A, in page 10, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert
'a citizen of the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 106A, in page 11, line 7, leave out 'his principal' and insert
'the place of work at which he spends the majority of his working time'.
No. 107A, in page 11, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 28.

Mr. Forth: I confess that, when I first saw the Bill, my eye was drawn to the provisions of clause 19. We heard over and over again—on Second Reading and in Committee—how the assembly was all about Londoners, and about how its establishment would be a great moment for Londoners. The Bill was about an assembly for London and for Londoners, and there would be an authentic London mayor.
I was therefore puzzled when I saw that the Bill provides that a person will be qualified to be elected mayor if he or she is
(a) a Commonwealth citizen;
(b) a citizen of the Republic of Ireland; or
(c) a relevant citizen of the Union.
Such a provision would be bad enough, but the Bill goes on to say that that same person must satisfy at least one of a group of other conditions, of which one is that
his principal or only place of work during that twelve months has been in Greater London".
I was therefore forced to the conclusion that it would be perfectly possible to have someone from Finland or New Zealand, for example—I have picked the two countries more or less at random, although one is at the other end of the globe, whereas the other is somewhere up near the arctic circle—as mayor. The Finn might not speak English, although the New Zealander would happily do so. The only other qualification that those undoubtedly excellent people would have to have is that their principal, not only, place of work for 12 months has been in Greater London. A person who does not speak English or who


comes from the other side of the world and whose sole qualification is that their principal place of work—an undefined term that could cover almost anything—is in London could offer themselves for election to a uniquely London body that provides an exciting new opportunity for London representation. That is political correctness carried to the most bizarre extent.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: But they would not be elected.

Mr. Forth: I am shocked that a Member of Parliament should feel himself able to predict the results of elections.

Mr. Gapes: rose—

Mr. Forth: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I shall give way in a moment.
We are talking about a serious matter: the qualifications set out in legislation for those who want to be authentic representatives of London.

Mr. Gapes: In 1978 I was on telling duty at a polling station in Thamesfield ward in Putney. One of the Conservative candidates subsequently became a Member of Parliament for a Croydon seat and has now moved on to newer pastures. A Conservative-supporting voter came up to me and said, "Who are those candidates for the Conservative party? Oh, one is a woman and one is a New Zealander. I'm not voting for him." Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) might be right.

Mr. Forth: Or perhaps that story endorses my view—who knows? Rather than concentrating on the citizenship of an individual, I want to tighten the undefined criterion of the principal place of work over the previous 12 months, because it does not establish adequate credentials or connection with London to qualify someone properly to stand for election to the new, exciting and uniquely London body. I could have gone further and suggested that all candidates should be Londoners, or maybe even that they should have been born within the sound of Bow bells—a claim that, alas, I cannot make.
If we are not careful, people with only the most tenuous link with London will be able to clutter up the voting paper. Given the complexity of the voting arrangements that are to be foisted on the people of London, clarity is essential, particularly during the early stages of the new process. There is a risk that the voters, struggling with all the novel forms of election, might be confused or misled if we allow such generous, unrestricted, loose and ill-defined qualifications. That is why my amendments would do a great service to the people of London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There are only two flaws in the argument of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), apart from the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—that someone who fitted the characteristics described would probably not survive the electoral battle. First, the rules for election to this place are based on the same criteria and have been used by certain Canadians and New Zealanders, who have become Tory Members.

Secondly, if we define the electorate, it is reasonable that they should be drawn from the same constituency as those who seek to be elected. There may be arguments about who the electorate should be, but that is not a debate for London, but a debate for electoral reform. The right hon. Gentleman might have an uphill struggle if he suggests that Commonwealth or European Union citizens—let alone Irish citizens—should be suddenly disfranchised after having lived here for years.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a couple of good points, and I shall make a couple more.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has seen fit to table the amendments, for the reasons that I shall explain. In seeking to narrow the categories of person who may stand for mayor or for the Assembly, amendments Nos. 105A and 107A could well send exactly the opposite message to the one that we have rightly encouraged—that London's multicultural diversity should be celebrated, rather than denigrated.
In Committee, I made it clear that the provisions of the Bill in respect of qualification to stand are based on the provisions of part V of the Local Government Act 1972 governing qualification to stand at local authority elections. It would be quite wrong to adopt different criteria for people standing for the Greater London Authority from those that apply for people standing for election in the London boroughs.
I find it even more extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should make the proposals given that the conferment on EU nationals of the right to vote and stand in local elections was inserted in the 1972 Act by regulations made in 1995 by the Government in which he was then serving as a Minister. I accept that the Conservative party is now apologising for what it did in government, and is moving on. However, it is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to wish to reverse so soon afterwards decisions that he was very much a party to in the last Parliament.
On amendment No. 106A, clause 19(4)(c) provides that a person is qualified to stand for mayor or for the assembly if he or she satisfies the condition that his or her principal or only place of work during the preceding 12 months has been in Greater London. The amendment would replace the reference to principal place of work with
the place of work at which he spends the majority of his working time.
I cannot accept the amendment.
The terminology in the current provision is based on the provisions of the 1972 Act. "Principal" in this context means main or chief place of work. Where there is doubt, it will be ultimately for the courts to establish as a question of fact what constitutes a person's principal place of work. The right hon. Gentleman's formulation would, by contrast, be less flexible and difficult to interpret.
If someone divided their time equally between a couple of part-time jobs and a voluntary position for a charity or community organisation, but was paid significantly more for one job than for the others—to the extent that that was clearly the most important or principal job that that person did—that person could be disqualified, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, simply on the basis that he did not spent 50 per cent. or more of his time on that job.
Therefore, there are practical problems with the proposal, as well as the obvious problem of precedent; the amendments would be a breach of current practice in local government provisions. It is important that the language of electoral law is consistent in such areas and, in the circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Forth: It always amuses me to hear Ministers and Labour Members say that because something has lasted for a long time and is well established, it cannot possibly be challenged. To me, that represents the ultimate acceptance of the credo of conservatism that is now rampant within the Government. Part of me welcomes that and finds it warming. However, we young, thrusting radicals in the Opposition do not necessarily accept that as a sufficient reason or rationale.
Suffice it to say, I have made my point and put down a marker. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, I do not necessarily accept that what is is necessarily acceptable, and I would like to revisit some of the matters. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to put down a marker and to demonstrate that the claim of the unique London aspect of the Bill cannot be made in light of the measure.
However, in view of what the Minister has so graciously said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23

DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE

Amendment made: No. 99, in page 13, line 28, leave out & 3(1)' and insert & 3(5)'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

New Clause 1

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR

'.—A mayoral candidate of any registered political party cannot be returned as mayor unless, no later than the time of his nomination as candidate, the registered leader of that party has delivered to the Greater London Returning Officer, and has made publicly available—

(a) a sworn declaration describing fully that party's procedures for the selection of its candidate as mayor, and
(b) a certificate declaring that all persons participating in the selection process derived their authority solely from elective processes in which all the members of that party in Greater London, or in any part of it, were entitled to participate at all stages.'.— [Mr. Ottaway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We now move from a young, thrusting, radical amendment to a young, thrusting, radical new clause. It is designed to give respectability and credibility to the method of selecting mayoral candidates and would provide that all those involved in the selection process, of whatever political party, are there to represent their party's members and are not imposed from the centre.
The Government office for London commissioned a report by Professor Dunleavy and Dr. Helen Margetts, entitled "Electing the London Mayor and the London Assembly". I want to read into the record one paragraph. It says:
It will be particularly important for the success of the London Mayor how the political parties go about making their candidate selection. If all the established parties follow OMOV procedures in picking candidates the eventual general election will seem much more legitimate to most people and the chance of there being dissident candidates from established parties will be reduced. If parties' internal procedures seem less legitimate then the election may not command such high levels of public support: dissident candidates will be more likely to stand against the official party nominees and more independent candidates could also stand, so the number of viable candidates would tend to grow. Given the importance of candidate selection procedures inside the parties for the direct election to an executive position, there is a case for the Government to require parties to follow OMOV procedures internally, which might require the registration of parties intending to offer Mayoral candidates also.
The new clause is designed to accept that recommendation and enshrine it in the law.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the hon. Gentleman want that principle to be extended to his constituency, so that it was required in law that the people of Croydon, South should follow similar procedures?

Mr. Ottaway: Frankly, I am pretty relaxed about it, because that is what happens now.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about the selection process?

Mr. Ottaway: I could not agree with the recommendation more, because it is essential that the public believe in the system. As for our selection process, we have a first round, a second round and a final round, and everyone involved in the process is a party member, elected by other members as a representative. That is the only way in which one can get on to the committees.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, but should that be enshrined in the law?

Mr. Ottaway: As I said, I am perfectly relaxed about that, because what I have described is what happens, except in the Labour party. The only way in which the recommendation can be enshrined in the law is for the House to accept the new clause. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great democrat and I am sure that he would not want a central diktat over the method of candidate selection for his party.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Ottaway: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but time is too short, because of the guillotine.
The Labour party is similar to us, and its document, "Modernising Labour Groups and Local Government: a consultation paper on the Labour Party contribution to implementing Modern Local Government", says:
Is the choice of candidates for mayors purely a local decision? Conference has indicated its support for the principle of OMOV for the selection of mayors. This is included in the proposals for the


election procedure for the Party's Mayor of London candidate. The party will need to set out procedures for shortlisting and selection criteria.
So far, so good, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) could not disagree with that; but then we come to another document, "Greater London Authority Elections 2000", subtitled "London Assembly Selection Process". Incidentally, I am grateful to whomever in the Labour party is leaking this stuff to me. I do not suspect the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on this occasion, but it might have been one of his friends or supporters.

Mr. Livingstone: It is unusual for us to get any Labour party documents.

Mr. Ottaway: In the case of this document, I am not surprised, because it states:
The London Regional Board shall establish a selections board to compile a panel of interested candidates. The selections board shall consist of 4 members of the regional board from their own members"—
So far, so good. However, it continues:
4 members of the NEC"—
and that is not so good, because—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are elected.

Mr. Ottaway: They may be elected, but they are not elected by London members. They are elected by United Kingdom members. In our judgment and as recommended by the report to the Government office for London, those involved in the selection process should be exclusively from London. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Workington would suggest that he should be involved in the selection of candidates in Scotland. The third group on the selection board are to be
4 members who are prominent and senior Labour Party members in London, who will bring experience and expertise to the panel.
There will also be four non-voting members on the panel. The document continues:
The independent members and advisers shall be appointed jointly by the Regional Board and the NEC.
That shows that the NEC will have a veto over who is selected, and that is the rub—and the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. In my party, everybody who takes part in the selection process does so as the result of a fair and democratic process.
The Labour party's selectors will be imposed by diktat from Millbank and the method of selection is designed to stop the hon. Member for Brent, East becoming the Labour mayoral candidate. The Labour party's proposals abuse the democratic process, damage the reputation of those of us who believe in democracy and damage the Labour party itself. Dr. Margetts and Professor Dunleavy are not out of step or freaks. They have articulated widespread concerns about the method of selection of candidates and it would be in the interests of the Labour party to take heed of what they have said.

Mr. Simon Hughes: New clause 1 is a good proposition. The case for it was made in Committee by us and has not been answered since. For the record, our system entirely accords with the proposal in new clause 1. The power to

choose shortlist candidates and to put the candidates before the London membership, who will vote with one member, one vote, was delegated to the London region of the party. It alone, with no veto from the central party, has gone through the procedure and set up the rules. It has appointed the selection panel and undertaken the approval and interviewing, and it will produce the short-list on which the membership in London will vote.
The Labour party has been embarrassed, is embarrassed and will be embarrassed—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You wish.

Mr. Hughes: I do wish, and I am glad, because the Labour party should not go down that road. The great new Labour party belief in devolution is a fig leaf because in fact a few people in the Cabinet and on the national executive are pulling the strings. We all know about that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone to Wales today because the Welsh election campaign cannot be allowed to run itself and the London election process can be vetoed by the national executive. If the Labour party were a modern democracy, it would support new clause 1. I look forward to its conversion, but I do not believe that it will happen soon.

Mr. Gapesd: We had a long discussion on this issue in Committee on 28 January. What was interesting then, and still appears to be the case, is that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats appear to wish to introduce a system of state control of political parties. If they had been in Czechoslovakia, or the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, they would doubtless have denounced actions taken by the state to determine how political parties determined their own internal processes for the selection of candidates. However, for opportunist reasons, they think that they can make some cheap political points by seizing on this issue, as we have just heard. They think that that looks good before the elections in Scotland and Wales, and that they can use the issue for their own purposes in the future.
The opportunism and rank hypocrisy of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are something to behold. It is outrageous to consider the state control of the way in which political parties choose candidates. If electors do not like the candidates put up by a political party, they will vote for other candidates from other parties; if they like that party's candidates, they will elect them. In a democracy, it is surely not for Parliament or the state to tell political parties how to determine their internal selection processes. For that reason, the new clause should be thrown out.

Mr. Wilkinson: I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to feel isolated in any way. I am sure that the new clause meets the wishes of members of the Conservative party, and that it conforms to the natural, democratic instincts of people throughout London.
Labour Members regularly make a song and dance about transparency and openness. Now they have a chance to show that their rhetoric is matched by their behaviour in practice. If they are to live up to their speeches about transparency and accountability to the electorate, they should incorporate new clause 1 into the Bill.
The public are all too cynical about politics in this country. The first election for the London mayor and for the Greater London Authority as a whole represents an opportunity to ensure that the mayor—the figurehead to whom the whole of London will look up—will be elected by wholly democratic means. The processes behind that democratic election should be in the public domain, and those responsible for them must submit a sworn declaration—a testimony—verifying that they are bona fide and in accordance with the democratic principles in which the Conservative party believes.
My final point was alluded to indirectly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). People in London will want the mayor to be the people's choice in London. It is essential that London members of a political party will have the deciding influence over who is chosen as candidate. That requirement is made clear in the new clause, but it is manifestly not part of the Labour party's intentions for this election.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has made the matter clear, and I am sure that the electorate will not forget it if the Government are remiss enough not to accept new clause 1.

Mr. John McDonnell: The important issue raised in the Dunleavy and Margetts report is that abuse of power by a political party may, in due course, reflect on and discredit the office of mayor of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked whether that issue required legislation, but legislation is used to correct an abuse, and so far the debate has shown that no abuse of party systems has taken place. The Labour party, like the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, has a shortlisting system that will be voted on by its individual members.
I urge any hon. Member to come forward if he or she can find a statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the leader of the Labour party, or from the chair of the board of the London Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), that would prevent any candidate from standing, or influence the vote. There has been no statement by the Prime Minister to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) from putting his name forward or being selected.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman says that no statement has been made to exclude the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or any other candidate. Would it not be more accurate to say that no on-the-record statement of that sort has been made by any representative of the Government? Have not the Government been briefing against the hon. Member for Brent, East for as long as any of us can remember? Why do they not have the guts to put it on the record?

Mr. McDonnell: Unfortunately, I am not party to off-the-record briefings. There is no statement directly attributable to the Prime Minister, the chair of the London board or any member of the national executive committee to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing.

Mr. Livingstone: There is a statement on the record. I discovered it when I opened my copy of "Turn Again

Livingstone", the new biography by John Carvel, price £6.99. He recounts a formal meeting with a Downing street senior official who works directly with the Prime Minister. Points about me were put and the reply was:
Tony likes Ken. They can have an amiable chat. He feels it is a terrible waste that his abilities have not been put to work. He is rather depressed about it.
I find all that very encouraging.

Mr. McDonnell: That proves that the Prime Minister is, if anything, trying to intercede on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East.
Do we need legislation at this stage to correct an abuse? As there has been no abuse of the system, and as the parties seem to be entering into the democratic spirit—exemplified, to some extent, by the new clause—in the selection of their candidates, I do not feel that legislation is required. However, if at some stage there are abuses of party political selection procedures, we may need to return to the matter. I put it on record that if there is interference in selections, we may need to return to this and I may promote a private Member's Bill.
All parties have a right of redress in respect of abuse from above in their selection systems. In the Labour party, it is the national executive committee. As they cast their votes, Labour party members will bear in mind the performance of NEC members on selection issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town knows, there is also the selection of the members and chair of the London board. There are democratic processes of recall. On that basis, I do not think that the argument for legislation at this stage has been carried.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: The thrust of the Conservative new clause is that there is some impropriety in Labour party procedures. As chair of the board of the Greater London Labour party—I am sure that this was pointed out in Committee but I repeat it here—I stress that the board has overwhelmingly endorsed the procedures that we have arrived at. The London board is elected regularly by the 65,000 members of the regional party. The individuals who have been nominated to the selection panel, both from the board and from the NEC, jointly arrived at a consensus.

Mr. Ottaway: If that is the case, is the hon. Gentleman happy for the matter to be left to 63,000 members of the Labour party in London?

Mr. Fitzpatrick: There seems to be some suggestion that London Labour's 65,000 members—I beg to differ on the figure—will not have the final decision. They will.

Mr. McDonnell: There seems to be an insinuation that my hon. Friend seeks to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing. It is worth pointing out that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town has made no attempt to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing. In many instances, he has given positive support to encourage democratic debate.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am pleased to receive the endorsement of my hon. Friend.


London Labour members will ultimately take the decision. The difficulty is that there are too many candidates; we cannot put all 20 or so to the London membership. The number on the final ballot paper will probably be no higher than four. That is our normal procedure for the selection of candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East may well be on that shortlist. It is not a matter on which I can contribute. However, the Labour party is comfortable with its procedures. Whatever the conclusions, the one thing of which we are confident is that the Labour candidate will be mayor for London next May.

Mr. Raynsford: I am surprised that the Opposition have seen fit to table this measure again, given our extensive debate on the subject in Standing Committee. As I explained in Committee, the measure would, in effect, require political parties to adopt internal selection procedures specified by the state in legislation. It would make the processes by which a particular party selected its mayoral candidate grounds for determining whether or not that candidate was in fact allowed to become mayor.
I am astonished that members of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties should be nailing their colours to the mast of state interference in the organisation of political parties. They know only too well that that is a slippery slope, which, once embarked on, can lead to the worst possible excesses. All too often, such excesses have stained democracy in parts of the world where state interference has been allowed. Members of parties that call themselves Conservative or Liberal Democrat should think very carefully before advocating state interference in the role and work of political parties.
As I made crystal clear in Committee, I cannot accept the measure. The procedure that each party adopts for selecting its candidates for any election must remain a matter for that party, not for the state. If the electors do not like the way in which a particular party selects its candidates, they will no doubt reflect their distaste when they come to vote. Furthermore, as I also pointed out in Committee, the measure could place a heavy burden on smaller parties. They may not have the resources to organise themselves on the lines proposed and might, therefore, find themselves unable to field a candidate, in which case the measure would have the effect of narrowing the electors' range of choice.

Mr. Bercow: Does the Minister not accept that, to a degree, candidate selection is already justiciable by the courts? The Labour party discovered that to its cost in the context of its women-only shortlist policy.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the extremely visible difference that people see when they look at this place between the relatively reduced, but predominantly male, group of people on the Opposition Benches—men in suits—and the proper representation of women as well as men on the Government Benches. That is the result of the Labour party's commitment to ensuring equal opportunities.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question, it is of course right that political parties must act within the law. It is for the courts to decide. That is different from the state interfering in the processes by which political parties

choose their candidates. I put it to Conservative Members, in the nicest possible way, that only members of parties that are in a terminal state of decline or are irredeemably confused could support such measures.
As I understand it, all three major parties will ensure that they have a democratic process for the selection of their candidates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has pointed out, the Labour party will elect its candidate on the basis of one member, one vote. That is clear. Furthermore, all parties will have a shortlisting process—although the Conservatives appear to be a bit confused about that.
In a press statement earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats admitted that they would be drawing up a shortlist of five candidates for mayor by March. They do not seem to have met that target, but never mind; they admit that they are going to draw up a shortlist. As for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is rather confused. In Committee, he said:
The Tory party is not having any pre-screening panels.
However, he continued:
In the first round the executive of the Greater London area … will do a paper sift of candidates … If there are 50 candidates, they will reduce the number to, say, 20."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 104.]
Although the Tories appear to be rather confused about how they are going to shortlist, shortlist they will, so there will be no problem about shortlisting by any political party.
The only argument being advanced relates to whether members of the party nationally should have an input into that process of shortlisting. It is purely the consequence of their party being incorrigibly anarchic, in the case of the Liberal Democrats, or in a state of terminal decline, in the case of the Tories, that Opposition Members believe that parties centrally should have no role to play in the selection of a candidate for the major post of mayor of London. The Opposition's proposals are opportunistic, inappropriate and disingenuous, and they deserve to be rejected.

Mr. Ottaway: What we are hearing is mock outrage masquerading as democracy. There is no doubt that the Conservative party selects its candidates only through those who are members of the party. There is no central diktat in the Conservative party, nor in the Liberal Democrat party; it is the Labour party that is being undemocratic. The Minister says that he believes in one member, one vote, but that is only if that one member lives at No. 10 Downing street. We shall divide the House on this new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 285.

Division No. 162]
[5.51 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Allan, Richard
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Brady, Graham


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brake, Tom


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Breed, Colin


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ballard, Jackie
Burnett, John


Bercow, John
Burstow, Paul


Blunt, Crispin
Butterfill, John


Boswell, Tim
Cable, Dr Vincent






Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


(NE Fife)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cash, William
Lansley, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Leigh, Edward


(Chipping Barnet)
Lidington, David


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Luff, Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


& Howden)
May, Mrs Theresa


Day, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Randall, John


Fabricant, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fearn, Ronnie
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fraser, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Townend, John


Hammond, Philip
Trend, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Wardle, Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Horam, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wilkinson, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Willis, Phil


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Woodward, Shaun


Jenkin, Bernard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Johnson Smith,



Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Keetch, Paul
Sir David Madel and


Key, Robert
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham
Best, Harold


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atkins, Charlotte
Blizzard, Bob


Austin, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Banks, Tony
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Borrow, David


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Bayley, Hugh
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Beard, Nigel
Bradshaw, Ben


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Buck, Ms Karen


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burden, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen





Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Healey, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hepburn, Stephen


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hesford, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Illsley, Eric


Crausby, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cummings, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Ms Jenny


Darvill, Keith
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dawson, Hilton
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
Kidney, David


Drown, Ms Julia
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Efford, Clive
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Ennis, Jeff
Laxton, Bob


Etherington, Bill
Lepper, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Fisher, Mark
Levitt, Tom


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Flint, Caroline
Linton, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Livingstone, Ken


Follett, Barbara
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lock, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gardiner, Barry
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
(Makerfield)


Gerrard, Neil
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gunnell, John
Marsden,Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)
Marsden,Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John






Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Merron, Gillian
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moffatt, Laura
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive 


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Organ, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pearson, Ian
(Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon


Pound, Stephen
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quinn, Lawrie
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Watts, David


(Hamilton S)
White, Brian


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ruane, Chris
(Swansea W)


Ruddock, Joan
Wills, Michael


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Salter, Martin
Wood, Mike


Sawford, Phil
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wyatt, Derek


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. David Jamieson and


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 25

THE PURPOSE OF THE AUTHORITY

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 109A, in page 14, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 15.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 110A to 113A and 120 to 122.
Government new clause 32—The general power of the Authority.
Government new clause 33—Limits of the general power.
Government new clause 34—Consultation.
Government amendments Nos. 126 and 128.

6 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I clarify that you have also called amendment (a) to new clause 32, which you did not announce? It may assist hon. Members to learn that, depending on the Government's response, we may seek to divide the House on that amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is quite right. I apologise to the House. Amendment (a) to new clause 32 is as follows: in line 6, after 'development', insert
'and the encouragement of equal opportunities'.

Mr. Raynsford: Part II of the Bill establishes the principal purposes of the authority, its general powers and functions, how those powers and functions should be exercised, and by whom. It deals also with the accountability and openness of the authority and its functional bodies, and the ethical standards it should maintain. Finally, it deals with the appointment of the authority's staff.
I do not intend to address all those issues today. Each of them was addressed and dealt with in Committee and none of the fundamental principles, or our intentions, were challenged successfully. However, important issues did emerge during our debates, and the amendments I am moving today seek to address the concerns that were expressed and, where necessary, to clarify or make more explicit our intentions.
The principal issues the amendments address are: first, the purposes of the authority; secondly, the general power of the authority; thirdly, consultations to be undertaken in relation to the use of the general power and the preparation of the mayor's strategies; and fourthly, the issues to which the mayor must have regard in preparing or revising those strategies. Our intentions in relation to each of those issues remain the same as in the Committee print of the Bill. So the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister seek simply to ensure that there is no confusion or ambiguity about those intentions, and to reassure Londoners and London organisations that the GLA will be an inclusive, not an exclusive, authority. To this end, amendments Nos. 109A, 110A and 111A delete clauses 25, 26 and 27 of the Bill which are replaced by new clauses 32, 33 and 34.
The principal purposes of the authority are integral to its successful functioning. Those purposes are threefold: first, promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London; secondly, promoting social development in Greater London; and, thirdly, promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Will new clause 32(2)(b), which refers to "promoting social development", take into account the promotion of equal opportunities as part of that development?

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall come specifically to that point in a few moments.


The authority's general power is conferred to enable it to further one or more of those purposes, and those purposes will inform the preparation of each of its strategies. Because of concerns expressed in Committee, the drafting of new clause 32 makes it absolutely clear that, in exercising the general power to do anything that it considers necessary to further any one or more of these purposes, the authority must have regard to the effect that that will have on the health of people in London, and on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
Where the authority does exercise the general power conferred by the clause, it is also required to do so in a way that is best calculated to create improvements in the health of people in London and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
Other amendments that we shall discuss later—amendments Nos. 114 and 118 to clause 33—ensure that, in preparing or revising his or her strategies, the mayor must have regard not only to the principal purposes of the authority but to similar considerations relating to health and sustainable development.
Promoting the improvement of the health of Londoners and achieving the objective of sustainable development will, therefore—as we have always intended—be explicit and fundamental considerations for the authority. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this meets our White Paper commitments and the concerns expressed in Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Specifically on those two matters, will the Minister explain why the Government are still resisting the inclusion of "promoting improvements in the health of persons in Greater London" and "the achievement of sustainable development" in the list of the principal purposes of the authority in new clause 32(2)? We have
economic development and wealth creation",
social development
and
improvement of the environment.
Why cannot we have the other two things up there, making a total of five principal purposes?

Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman obviously did not follow closely the line of argument that we advanced in Committee. We clearly explained that the three principal purposes that I have described are the overarching purposes of the authority, but that, inevitably, they overlap with some of the issues raised by the promotion of health and the promotion of sustainable development. In order to prevent the possibility of any misunderstanding, we have chosen to give added prominence to the issues of health and sustainable development, but without compromising the architecture of the Bill, which has always depended on those three pillars or principal purposes—economic, social and environmental.
As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, sustainable development is obviously implicit in the environmental objective, but it also must be reflected in the economic

and social development objectives. If it is not, there will not be sustainable development. Therefore, it would be confusing to set sustainable development as a separate objective.
We have responded to concerns that we were not giving sufficient emphasis to health and to sustainable development by tabling new clause 32, which makes it clear that these considerations are to be in the forefront of thinking in the new authority, but that they must fall in with the three principal pillars that sustain the new authority. We hope that no uncertainty or ambiguity remain on the subject.
I cannot accept amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others, which would add to the principal purposes of the authority
the encouragement of equal opportunities".
That is not because I do not think that the authority should encourage equal opportunities: on the contrary, we strongly believe that the authority should encourage and promote equal opportunities—it should and it must. We oppose the amendment because it is unnecessary to provide for it in this way.
I cannot conceive of a situation where the principal purpose of promoting social development would not include the encouragement of equality of opportunity. I say that in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who is rightly concerned about the matter. Social development obviously cannot be promoted if equality of opportunity is not encouraged.
As I said in Committee, we have sought to ensure, in our discussions of the Green Paper, the White Paper and now the provisions of the Bill, that in our multicultural capital the authority will respond to all sections of the community and promote equal opportunities.
The GLA will have to observe the existing framework for equal opportunities which is imposed on local authorities. It will be subject to the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and many of the Bill's provisions will ensure that the authority gives equal opportunities the importance that they deserve. The provisions and our amendments on consultation, transparency and accessibility are all especially important in that respect.

Mr. Hughes: I hear what the Minister says in response to our amendment and to the intervention by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), but is it right that there are provisions that resemble the wording of amendment (a) in the Scotland Act 1998, in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998? The amendment is supported by the Association of London Government. Why on earth are we exclusively taking London out of that flagged-up, written-up protection, which is widely supported by those outside the House who believe that it should be written into part II of the Bill?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will recall from many hours of debate in Committee that provisions that have been implemented in Scotland and in Wales have


not been adopted in the same way in London. Conversely, some provisions that we have adopted in the London legislation are not echoed in the Scotland and Wales legislation, for very good reasons.
Earlier, we discussed thresholds. We have made provision for thresholds in the Bill, but there is no equivalent in Scotland or in Wales. If we believe—as I thought the Liberal Democrats did believe—in devolution, we may feel that it is appropriate that there might be some differences in the way in which duties and powers are expressed in different parts of the country. However, I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—and I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town—that that does not in any way imply that there is not a commitment to equal opportunities. On the contrary, we have a total commitment to equal opportunities. It is implicit in the way in which the Bill is drafted. There are clear statutory obligations on the authority to pursue equal opportunities.
Moreover, as I have explained, the GLA will be a best-value authority, and best value will require local authorities to put equality and equality of opportunity at the heart of their policies. No authority could be said to be truly effective if it discriminated against one section of the community, or in favour of another, in the delivery of its services.
Of course, we do not intend to give the authority carte blanche to do anything that it chooses. That is why, in drafting the general power and purposes provisions of the Bill, we have sought to achieve a clear balance between the need to provide the authority with the freedom and flexibility to act, and the need to avoid duplication with the statutory responsibilities of its own functional bodies and other authorities, organisations and public bodies.
For that reason, the limitations that we sought to place on the use of the general power in clause 27 remain the same in new clause 33. Now, however, they are freestanding. The only new provision is set out in subsection (9). That gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to remove or restrict the prohibitions or limitations placed on the use of the power by the rest of the clause. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to add to these prohibitions—clause 27(10)—and we felt that it was right and appropriate and a suitable balance, not least because of allegations that have been made by Opposition parties that we were giving too many powers to the Secretary of State, also to provide the power to remove particular prohibitions or limitations.
Our primary objective in establishing the GLA's structure and its procedure is that it should be easily accessible to the people of London and that it should be able to respond to and reflect their interests, needs and priorities. An essential means of securing that objective is to ensure that effective consultation takes place. Londoners must be able to ensure that their views about what the authority does, or plans to do, are properly considered and taken into account.
For that reason, we included in clause 25 provisions requiring the authority, in deciding whether to exercise any of its powers, to consider consultations with bodies or people that it considers appropriate to consult—including in particular business interests. We also provided a requirement in clause 34 for the mayor to consult about the preparation or revision of his or her strategies.
These provisions were meant to be inclusive, but it was clear from debate in Committee and from representations that I received from interested groups that our intentions would be made clearer if some broad categories of interest were named in the Bill as consultees or potential consultees. We agree that clarity is important in this matter. New clause 34 and amendment No. 120 to clause 34 extend the consultation provisions to meet the concerns that have been expressed.
The general power provided for in new clause 32 can now be exercised by the mayor only after consultation with such bodies or people as the mayor considers appropriate in any particular case. Moreover, in determining what consultations, if any, are necessary, the mayor must consider whether to consult certain specified categories of interest.
Those categories are any London borough council; the common council; voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of Greater London; bodies that represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in London; bodies that represent the interests of different religious groups in Greater London; and bodies that represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London.
Amendment No. 120 requires the mayor, in preparing or revising any strategy, to consider consulting the same bodies.
Some concern has been expressed that the amendments might in some way diminish the requirement to consult business. I can state categorically that that is not the case. The mayor must now have regard to the principal purposes of the authority—which include economic development and wealth creation—in preparing or revising any strategy, and as a consequence of amendment No. 120 must now consider consulting business about those strategies.
That, of course, means that consultation must take place in circumstances where business's interests would be affected. It was never our intention to give business, or any other interest group, the right to be consulted irrespective of the circumstances. That would be both impracticable and foolish. However, we believe it right that business should be consulted on all matters likely to affect business interests. That is what we have provided for.
I am sure hon. Members will agree that the mayor must have some discretion in deciding who he or she should consult. The mayor obviously cannot consult everybody about everything. These provisions mean that, where the mayor fails to give proper consideration to who he or she should consult, or fails to consult bodies representing groups with legitimate interests that will be affected by the exercise of the authority's powers and functions, the mayor's reasons for failing to do so could be challenged and tested. Our intention is to protect the legitimate interests of Londoners, while preserving the proper discretion of the mayor to decide who he or she should or should not consult.
Throughout our debates in Committee, there was a tendency for any hon. Member who came across a list, in any clause, to seek to amend the Bill by adding to that list some other item or consideration. We have resisted such amendments. In this case, however, we recognised that there was genuine concern to improve the way in


which our intentions were expressed in the Bill, and legitimate reasons for doing so. We have therefore agreed to the inclusion of this short list in the Bill.
I should warn Opposition Members, however, that this is not an invitation for them to consider what they can add to that list. I note that in one of his later amendments—amendment No. 151—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is already seeking to add a further category of consultees to those who should be consulted about the strategies. We will be resistant to further additions, because lists that are allowed to grow become unwieldy and, rather than being indicative, risk becoming exclusive, thereby discouraging wider consultation.
I have considered the comments made in Committee, and other representations that I received, about requiring the authority to establish a civic forum. However, I remain of the view that it would be wrong to require the authority to establish such a forum. It should be for the authority to decide how to conduct its consultations.
New clause 34(4) provides the authority with a specific power to make appropriate arrangements for undertaking consultation. Therefore, there can be no doubt about the authority's powers to establish a civic forum, if it believes that that would be the best way to proceed.
The other amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are more modest in their scope. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 make it clear that when and if new functions are transferred or conferred on the authority, they will be exercisable by the mayor unless otherwise specified. Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 126 and 128 are consequential, drafting or technical amendments.
I apologise for taking some time to introduce and explain the amendments and new clauses. I hope that the House will recognise that the issues are complex and that it is important for them to be spelt out in detail before we debate them.

Mr. Ottaway: We agree with the broad thrust of this extensive group of amendments and new clauses. However, I make one observation. If ever evidence were required that the Labour party had lost its soul, spirit and principles, the House need look no further than new clause 32.
For the Labour party, of all parties, to state that the primary objective—the objective that it puts at the top of the list—is wealth creation in Greater London astonishes me. As the Minister moved the clause, I saw the ghosts of the elder statesmen of the Labour party stirring in their graves. What they would make of those priorities, I cannot imagine.
We all know why the Government have done that. This is the Labour party of mood music and focus groups, which tells the public what they want to hear. That is cover for the fact that the Government have introduced compulsory union recognition, signed the social chapter, introduced a minimum wage and accepted the working time directive, all of which do nothing to help wealth creation in Greater London.

Mr. Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: Labour is the party of soaring welfare bills and falling police numbers. It is the party that wants to surrender the country's interests to a European superstate.

Mr. Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
We are the party of wealth creation, of the free market economy, of liberalisation and deregulation, of honesty in taxation and of creative solutions. I give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) should not stand for so long when he is seeking to intervene.

Mr. Livingstone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to intimidate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) so that he would let me get in.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any Labour Government who were not in favour of wealth creation? There has been a debate about the proportion of the wealth that should come to the central state for redistribution, but having been around some of the wilder fringes of the Labour movement over the past 30 years, I never came across anyone, apart from one or two complete nutters, who was not in favour of wealth creation. They just wanted some of it for themselves.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I cannot imagine any other Labour Government but the present one who would put wealth creation first. Although they have put it first, and they know that it will run well with the public, they do not know what it means. I gave a list of the measures that they have introduced which will do nothing but destroy wealth creation.
The clause is a facade. The Labour party has no idea how to promote wealth creation. Nevertheless, we look forward to its implementation by a Conservative mayor who knows what the expression means and how to put it into action.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That interlude from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) suggests that he thinks that the Tory party's policy on these matters needs redefinition. I warn him that the more redefinition we get in the final fortnight before certain elections, the more unhelpful it may be.
There are three substantive matters relating to this group of amendments and new clauses. The first was the subject of my first intervention in the Minister's speech. The Government are regrouping their clauses of old into their new clauses of today. Although they say that the entire London edifice must stand on three pillars, whatever we think of the order in which they are expressed—economic, social and environmental—all of which are fine, there has never been a convincing and logical argument against the addition of sustainability and health as primary purposes.
The pressure from outside the House, and the general view expressed by those who responded to the Green Paper, was that one of the functions of the Greater London Authority should be to promote the health of Londoners.


It should therefore be a principal purpose. We do not think that the Government have any justification for downgrading it.
6.30 pm
On the second, sustainability, the Government's argument does not stack up either. Although the Minister is right to say that we need economic, social and environmental sustainability, none the less each of the three principal purposes listed in the new clause is interconnected; and it does not mean to say that we should not have economic development that is not socially or environmentally acceptable.
The Government remain unpersuaded. I am not even sure that the new drafting works much better. New clause 32(2) now lists the three principal purposes to be promoted, (4) adds health and sustainability and has slightly odd wording, and (5) contains another qualification, namely, that any action can be undertaken only if it is reasonably practicable. The draft people have been at work again. I am sure that there is a clearer way, even if the Government did not want to go the whole hog with us and list the five purposes.
The second matter on which the Government said they had responded was consultation. We welcome the fact that new clause 34 includes a list of groups of consultees. In Committee, we had an odd debate about when we should or should not have lists. The truth of the matter is that the Government have lists throughout the Bill, but they did not like it when anyone else wanted to alter them. The new clause is a result of pressure to list bodies that are properly to be consulted. We welcome the fact that the voluntary sector, racial, ethnic and national groups, and religious and business groups in London are to be consulted. We recognise and welcome the fact that the Government have flagged it up that if they were not consulted those groups would have recourse. They want to participate and be involved.
We share the Government's view that being over-prescriptive about the format in which the groups should be consulted would be wrong. Therefore, a provision that states that we should consult with these people is better than something called a civic forum, or some other definition of what may be a changing kaleidoscope of London organisations.
The only amendment to the Government's new clause that your predecessor in the Chair confirmed had been selected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the simple amendment (a) to new clause 32, to which I referred, and which was tabled by my hon. Friends and me. It would provide that the encouragement of equal opportunities should be expressly included in the power of the authority. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will understand me when I say that there would be a deficit in the Bill if the amendment were not included.
The Minister said that we believe in different solutions for different parts of the United Kingdom, and I understand the argument. It is a reasonable proposition. However, there is no reason why legislation that will set up regional or citywide government for London—whatever one likes to call it—where there is a wider racial and ethnic mix and a more diverse community than any other place in Britain, should not contain legislative guarantees that the Government agency for this part

of the world should promote equal opportunities. The Government in Scotland will have certain powers in that regard. The Assembly in Wales will have fewer powers than the Government of Scotland, but the provision is written in there. The Northern Ireland Assembly will not have the full legislative remit, but it is written in there too.
London government will have powers that go beyond the local boroughs. It will act across that whole range of activity. I hope that the Government will reconsider and decide that it will be in their interest but, more important in the interests of the communities of London that the equal opportunities power be included in the legislation.
Stonewall has written to me in the past few days specifically commending the Bill. In the light of the incidents of the past two weeks, when two of our racial communities and one area of London that is popular with another of our communities have been under attack by whatever sort of person for whatever motive, organisations such as Stonewall, which are entirely credible and reputable, have been reminded that to have an equal society in London we need to ensure that legislation for London reflects that equality.
I hope that the Government will accept that proposition and the amendment. If they do not do so, we will force a Division to flag up the fact that the matter is of the highest importance. I hope that the provision will not have to go to the other place before it is changed. If the House does not accept the amendment, I have no doubt that the other place will want to reconsider the matter and change the Bill.

Mr. Wilkinson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) I generally welcome new clauses 32, 33 and 34, which supersede clauses 25, 26 and 27. It is always heartening when Ministers listen to representations made in Committee and come back on Report with enhancements to the drafting and improvements to the Bill. I am convinced that the three new clauses would achieve those aims.
On the principal powers that the authority is to pursue, I, like my hon. Friend, wholeheartedly applaud the unequivocal statement that the promotion of economic development and wealth creation is to be an objective of the authority. It is sad that Labour policy under this Government to date has militated against this objective. It is to be hoped that the mayoralty, under another colour—a Conservative colour—may genuinely and wholeheartedly pursue and succeed in achieving the objective of wealth creation.
I am never clear what social development means, but I have an idea of what the Government have in mind. Of course, improvement of the environment is important. However, the key is the reasonable balance stipulated in new clause 32(3)(b). Pursuing economic development at the expense of the environment has done much damage in London, as has the neglect of social development in the pursuit of economic objectives. That balance must be at the heart of the authority's powers, which it is. I hope that, in the execution of those powers, the authority will genuinely secure reasonable equilibrium between those three main objectives.
The beneficial side effects will be the promotion of the health of persons in London, which is well and good, and contribution towards the achievement of sustainable


development. I confess to still being somewhat at a loss as to what sustainable development entails in a London context. I can only presume that it is a consequence of that balance which is mentioned earlier in the new clause.
The limits are equally important. They are heartening and they are part of the reason why I applaud the new clauses. New clause 33 states unequivocally that
The Authority shall not by virtue of"—
the general powers—
incur expenditure in providing … any housing".
The old-fashioned Greater London council housing estates were some of the most damaging housing developments for the environment in London and they brought about a division in housing provision that has had adverse social consequences to this day. [Interruption.]
I welcome the statement that the authority shall not incur expenditure on "any education services". The Inner London education authority is not a body which we would want to be resurrected in any shape or form and it cannot be under new clause 33.
Likewise, social services are obviously best provided at the most local level possible, which is the borough. As for health services, although provision is inadequate in London—I know that the Liberal Democrats have concerns about it and believe that the authority should have a fuller role—health is a professional matter which is best dealt with by professionals. I do not believe that the authority would have such skills.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend develops a powerful case. Perhaps he overheard the Minister for Transport in London chuntering the word, "rubbish" from a sedentary position a moment ago in response to what he was saying about old-fashioned council housing. I wonder whether my hon. Friend deduces from that chuntering that the hon. Lady is an enthusiast for the drab uniformity of former council house provision.

Mr. Wilkinson: If I engender any reaction on the Government Benches, especially the Front Bench, I am heartened, especially in a somewhat specialist debate of this nature.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am determined to nail the canard that any utterance of mine from a sedentary or standing position is not entirely comprehensible to anyone in the Chamber. I never chunter.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will, on mature reflection, agree with me that Labour policies on social housing transformed the life of thousands of Londoners by taking them out of the squalid slums in which decade after decade of Conservative Government had regrettably left them. The housing provided was a benchmark for the kind of housing that transforms not only people's lives but their health and the lives of their children.

Mr. Wilkinson: I agree that the hon. Lady never chunters. Her diction and elocution are a model to us all. If we all projected our voices as well as she does, we would do a better job.
Social housing had its usefulness in its time, but it created ghettos. Decay was not remedied in many instances. Lady Thatcher's policy of enabling tenants to buy their homes did the good which was delayed for so long and transformed Greater London council estates.
I referred in Committee to new clause 33(4)(b). I seek a renewed assurance on the Floor of the House that the power to acquire existing housing accommodation shall not be abused. The subsection refers to "a temporary basis". The power could be abused, especially if compulsory purchase powers were invoked.
I welcome the broad balance of the consultees who are specifically listed in new clause 34 and the fact that the authority will be able to work out with the consultees the best manner of formalising any arrangement. The Government have done a good listing job and generally improved the Bill.

Mr. Tony McNulty: I did not intend to speak, but I have been sorely provoked, not least by the little tantrum from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), which exerted him so much that he had to leave. He then came back bright and recovered; whatever he went out to get, can I have some of it please? The hon. Gentleman spoke abject nonsense. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that no Labour Government were ever against wealth creation of any description.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seems to have great difficulty understanding overarching principles and qualifications of those principles in relation to health and sustainable development. He shows naked opportunism when it comes to equal opportunities. It is interesting that, this time round, he seemed to eschew lists. He may remember a classic little list from the Liberal Democrats in Committee that had about 20 organisations on it. Sadly, five never existed; three were wrongly named; and two had already been abolished. That is the strength of little Liberal Democrat lists.

Mr. Simon Hughes: A slight exaggeration.

Mr. McNulty: Well, I am allowed poetic licence to some degree, surely.
New clause 34 deals with consultation. It is right that it contains short lists of core bodies that should be consulted, such as the London boroughs and the common council. The new clause gives the mayor and the democratically elected assembly powers to consult whomever they see fit, as and when they see fit. That must be true democratic practice.
6.45 pm
I wish to nail the canard that, without the Liberals' sixth-form little amendment, the Bill will contain no reference to equal opportunities. That is utter nonsense. By any reading, equal opportunities and cultural diversity pervade the Bill. If people do not realise that, they should read the Committee proceedings in detail. During those glorious two months up in Committee Room 12, hon. Members from all parties stressed again and again the importance of equal opportunities and cultural diversity. So it is a shame and beneath contempt that the


hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey implied that, without his amendment, equal opportunities would not be dealt with in the substance of the Bill.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's reference to Stonewall, it is a sheer and utter disgrace to pray in aid the bombs that have gone off in London in the past week in support of his amendment. To say that we must accept his silly little amendment because any real notion of cultural diversity and equal opportunities is absent from the Bill is shameful naked opportunism.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendment originated not with me but with others outside the House, so it is not "my little amendment". Those from whom it came think that it is important. It was important before the events of the past two weeks and it is important now. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has not answered is why legislation for London government should not give the same prominence to equal opportunities as legislation for the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening—he was talking to his colleague—he would have heard me say that equal opportunities pervade the Bill. They pervade it far more extensively than the legislation for Scotland and for Wales, which sought to encapsulate reference to equal opportunities in one clause. One has only to read the Committee proceedings to know how hon. Members from all parties view equal opportunities and cultural diversity.

Mr. Bercow: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and exhort the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) not to understate his case, which is a serious failing on his part. Does he agree that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has just introduced an extraordinary constitutional doctrine which I have not come across before? He suggests that an amendment is not his simply because he was put up to it by someone outside the House. Is it not important that the hon. Gentleman should accept exclusive responsibility for the amendment that he and his party have tabled?

Mr. McNulty: Happily, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was not a member of the Committee for two months. If he had been, it might have been all the more painful an experience. I am grateful for his guidance. I am mindful of the fact that I have a tendency to understate my case when I speak in the House, so I shall take his advice on board. He is right that, when hon. Members table an amendment, it is their amendment, wherever they take their inspiration from. Time and again in Committee, as members of the Committee will know, when Liberal Democrat members were in a corner they used the little refrain, "It's someone else's, not ours, guy," rather than claiming their own words. The proceedings are littered with that refrain, however much the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey may shake his head.
I am pleased that new clauses 32, 33 and 34 move us on to greater clarity, not least on the general power of the authority—despite what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says. Clearly, the Liberals would rather have some first-year undergraduate essay of 20,000

words covering every little aspect of what the GLA may or may not do, but we seek to legislate for a strategic body; to give it the broad strategic framework within which to operate; and to elect a bunch of people to run it and tell them to get on with it, both in terms of fulfilling its functions and in terms of deciding who it should consult and how.
Happily, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, we know that there will not be a Liberal Democrat mayor. Equally, we know that—unless the Conservatives secure a proper candidate rather than the current front-runner, who likes to give £2,000 to strangers at Paddington station every now and again—there will not be a Conservative mayor. I merely ask hon. Members to embrace not just the essence of new clauses 32, 33 and 34, but all aspects of the GLA.
As I said in Committee, I believe that five or 10 years from now the beast that will be the GLA and the mayor will be entirely different from what is currently in the legislation. That should inspire us with relish rather than anything else, but I will not indulge, or allow the House to indulge, in the naked opportunism indulged in by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is a disgrace, and I thought that someone should say so.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate on what a number of speakers have recognised to be an attempt by the Government to rephrase and clarify the previous drafting of the Bill, to ensure that its purposes are clear and unambiguous.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) gave us an insight into his strange view of the world when he suggested that wealth creation was not a concern of the party that is currently in government. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) made the perfect riposte, pointing out that, in some 30 years' experience of that party, he had never known wealth creation not to be one of its principal objectives—although, of course, there would be other objectives. We are no different in that respect: we make it clear that the principal purposes of the Bill are not just the promotion of economic development and wealth creation, but the promotion of social development and environmental improvement. I cannot imagine any sane person objecting to that formulation.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister confirm that no Labour Government have left office with unemployment lower than when they took office?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been reading his history. The Labour Government of 1945 inherited circumstances in which an enormous number of people were returning from the armed services without employment, and ensured that they left conditions of virtually full employment to the Conservative Government who succeeded them in 1951. That was a remarkable achievement—rather different from the achievement of Conservative Governments during the 1980s and 1990s, who presided over a massive increase in unemployment as a result of two recessions that their ill-conceived policies visited on the country.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is still wedded to the view that he expressed in Committee: "If ever we see a list,


let us add an item to it". The hon. Gentleman seems unable to break that habit. We will keep trying, but I fear that the habit is deeply ingrained, probably as part of his party's policy.
The hon. Gentleman was a bit confused about subsections (4) and (5) of new clause 32. Let me explain, so that there is no doubt at all. Subsection (4) confers a duty on the authority, when it is considering whether—and, if so, how—to exercise its power, to
have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have
on the health of Londoners, and on sustainable development objectives. A second duty, under subsection (5), binds the authority, when it exercises the power conferred on it by an earlier subsection, to act in the way that it considers best calculated to promote improvements in health. That imposes an obligation both to consider the issue and to act in a particular way. Subsection (5) also imposes a duty to act in the furtherance of sustainable development. I consider that an appropriate way in which to describe the duty involved in both the contemplation and the implementation of policy.
As for equal opportunities—as I have made clear, and as has been reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—we are entirely committed to them. We want the authority to be exemplary in the pursuit of such opportunities: throughout the Bill are provisions requiring the authority to act in a way that will enhance them for all sections of the community in London. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey makes the mistake of assuming that one token reference is better than a Bill that establishes a series of duties and obligations that will achieve the effect that he wants. That is tokenism, rather than the pursuit of policies that will have an impact—and I have to say that it is one of the besetting sins of the Liberal Democrats.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his kind comments about what we have done to try to improve the drafting of the Bill. In regard to housing, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London rightly expressed concern about his remarks denigrating the London county council's record of providing good-quality homes for hundreds of thousands of Londoners; but, rather than pursuing that, perhaps we should focus on the purpose of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman approved of the effect of subsection (3) of new clause 33, which does not allow the authority to incur expenditure in providing housing. The reason for the provision is, quite simply, that we do not consider that there should be a duplication of powers that already rest with the London boroughs. The position has changed dramatically since the LCC was the major housing authority for London. The boroughs are now the principal housing authorities, and we do not want an overlap or a duplication of responsibilities.
The hon. Gentleman was, however, worried about subsection (4), and the possibility that the authority would acquire existing accommodation. It is clear that that would be only in support of additional purposes—other purposes that the authority has power to pursue. For example, in the case of an economic development objective, the GLA could be asked by a borough or a public-private

partnership in an area of London to act in a way that would further the development of that area, and to acquire certain properties. It would have the power to do that, ancillary to other uses.

Mr. Wilkinson: The Minister has spelt out the position relating to economic development. I am concerned about subsection (2)(b), which relates to the promotion of social development. Is that not the loophole that could be exploited, perhaps unscrupulously, by an extremist mayor in the pursuit of objectives that most mainstream people would not support? Compulsory purchase powers should not be used for the extension of social housing in London.

Mr. Raynsford: I can envisage circumstances in which, in support of a local regeneration scheme, the GLA might act to support a local authority in carrying out the decanting of people in need of rehousing, but that would be ancillary to its principal objective of furthering regeneration. It would not be able to pursue its objectives purely for the sake of housing. That is the distinction. It is there to act in partnership, and to support others; it may not itself act in pursuit of housing objectives, and it has no compulsory purchase powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East rightly reminded us of the Liberal Democrats' tendency in Committee in respect of lists. He rightly pointed out that equal opportunities pervade the Bill. I hope that the House will not be tempted to follow the Liberal Democrats in showing a tokenist adherence to the principle of equal opportunities, but will support the Government, who are keen to ensure that the authority acts in the interest of all sections of the community in London, and genuinely enhances equal opportunities.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 14, line 35, after 'of', insert 'health and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 31, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
'(da) the Greater London Regional Health Authority;'.
No. 38, in page 18, line 12, at end insert—
'(ba) the Greater London Regional Health Authority,'.
No. 39, in clause 57, page 31, line 13, leave out 'and'.
No. 40, in page 31, line 14, at end insert
'and
(e) the Greater London Regional Health Authority.'.
New clause 12—Greater London Regional Health Authority—
'(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Greater London Regional Health Authority.
(2) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this or any other Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in this Act to the functions of the Greater London Regional Health Authority includes a reference to any functions made exercisable by this Act.


(3) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall exercise its functions

(a) in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by the Mayor,
(b) for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Authority of the duties under this Act, and
(c) for the purpose of securing and facilitating the implementation of the health strategy.

(4) The Authority may issue to the Greater London Regional Health Authority—

(a) guidance as to the manner in which it exercises its functions,
(b) general instructions as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions, or
(c) specific instructions as to the exercise of its functions.'.

Amendment No. 41, in clause 305, page 158, line 37, leave out 'or'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 158, line 38, at end insert
'or
(e) the Greater London Regional Health Authority;'.

Mr. Hughes: The amendment proposes that health should be one of the matters that the authority should try to improve, as part of its objective to promote economic and social development. One of the strange omissions in the Bill is the Government's refusal to give the authority more than a limited role in relation to health. We debated it in our earlier discussion, but apparently it is not to be included in clause 25.
7 pm
We have never understood, and still fail to understand, why the Government have not taken the great opportunity to put what is now the newly constituted regional health office for London—it has been in existence since the beginning of April, was formed out of the previous north and south Thames offices and is the obvious body to look after regional health strategy—under the umbrella, as it were, of the Greater London Authority, making it one of the functional bodies, to use a phrase in the Bill, and one of the tools with which the GLA would work to achieve its purposes throughout London. We are going to end up with the GLA planning things to do with the promotion of better health—we discussed them in the previous debate—but not being given the link to the obvious body to do that.
New clause 12 would set up, under that umbrella, the Greater London regional health authority. It would effectively take a body that is led by appointees—secret people, whom the public barely know—and is a remote part of the NHS, and bring it across, so that it could be accountable to the people of London.
Controversial decisions about the closing of hospitals, the planning of strategic health services or the amalgamation of great teaching hospitals should be taken in the open, by accountable people who can be kicked out of office if they get the decisions wrong and who have more than a local view. That is a strongly felt view in London.
We hope that the Government, having resisted the proposal in Committee, will, even at this late hour in the proceedings on the Bill, have second thoughts. The move is strongly supported by those outside the House who,

however disparaged they are by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), seek to persuade us to advance arguments with which we agree, on their behalf.

Mr. Ottaway: I shall comment briefly on the Liberal Democrat proposal to establish a regional health authority. It seems to us that, when the London regional office of the NHS executive was created in January, it was intended to fill the gaps in the strategic management of health care in London. That office was intended to work in partnership with local government social services, not under local government direction.
The London regional office was given five key issues to deal with: developing an understanding of health needs across London; improving primary care; developing intermediate and community care; putting a new focus on the most vulnerable Londoners; and modernising London hospitals. In the judgment of the Conservative party, direct provision of health care is best left to the professionals, rather than to those in local government.

Mr. Wilkinson: I broadly support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but at the same time express a certain sympathy for the objectives behind the Liberal Democrat amendment. I think that all of us will have had experience, in our daily duties as constituency Members, of the problem that is caused by the undemocratic nature of health authorities that take decisions on behalf of our constituents.
Those decisions seem at times totally irrational. They certainly have been in the Hillingdon borough with regard to Mount Vernon hospital. If things go wrong, that may also be the case with decisions on the future of Harefield hospital. However, the problem extends well beyond London.
I am not clear how a body that is specifically directed to bringing forward a Londonwide health policy, under the control of the Greater London Authority, and thereby making it accountable would be the model for the nation as a whole. The London executive of the national health service has to disburse funds that are raised nationally. The London region allocates resources in competition with bodies that allocate resources elsewhere in the country. We have seen how resources have been taken away from London under the old RAWP—resource allocation working party—formula, to the benefit of the provinces.
There needs to be a re-examination of how to achieve better democratic accountability for the NHS as a whole, nationwide. I do not believe that the Bill is the way in which to do it. It would cause a distortion of administrative processes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has said, it is an area of public policy that is best left to the professionals.

Mr. Hughes: We share the hon. Gentleman's view that, ideally, accountability would be better achieved on an England-wide basis; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have their own arrangements. We do not have that for the time being. It is only because of the inability of any legislative vehicle to achieve accountability more widely that we seek to do it now. If we could do it for London this year, we could do it for the other parts of England next.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am not sure that the Labour Government are yet disposed to what the Liberal


Democrats propose. It may come to that, but the Minister shakes his head. I am sure that some of the older members of his party who are behind him will be shaking their heads even more vigorously.
I appreciate the intentions. In our part of London, decisions have been driven through against the clear, majority will of local people. Huge petitions are raised and not a blind bit of notice is taken. However, it is not a purely London phenomenon. It is one that other Members have suffered elsewhere. We must acknowledge that fact and say that, laudable as the objective behind the amendment is, it is deficient.

Mr. Raynsford: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has returned to the issue at this stage of the Bill. I thought that I had made it clear in Committee that the Government had no intention of establishing a Greater London regional health authority under the direction of the Greater London Authority.
We want the GLA to have a clear and genuinely strategic role in considering the underlying determinants of health. We want it to have a duty to take action, as I have described, in promoting improvements to Londoners' health. That is what the Bill provides for, but there is no justification for another tier of health administration.
There are no regional health authorities in other parts of the country; they were abolished in 1996. Since 1 January, there has been a new strategic health body for London, the London regional office of the NHS executive. It is concerned with strategic health issues for the capital, as well as strategic management of health services. We expect it to work in close partnership with the GLA for the benefit of Londoners.
I detect a certain difference between the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who speaks for the official Opposition and who broadly concurs with our policy, and that of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Perhaps the rethink going on in the Conservative party about its role in relation to health is an active debate, in which those two Members are on different sides, but I will leave their private grief to them and their party.
We are setting a clear provision for health to be at the forefront of the new Greater London Authority's mind when developing its services, but it should not be engaged in the administration of the NHS, which is better dealt with by other means.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The campaign to democratise the health service will go on. I was not expecting the Government to give in. They are resisting democracy in all sorts of places. Conceding that on this occasion they have the numbers against us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26

SECRETARY OF STATE'S GUIDANCE ABOUT THE AUTHORITY'S PURPOSE

Amendment made: No. 110A, in page 15, leave out lines 18 to 25.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 27

GENERAL POWER OF THE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 111A, in page 15, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 16.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 29

FUNCTIONS TO BELONG TO AUTHORITY BUT BE EXERCISABLE BY MAYOR, ASSEMBLY OR BOTH

Amendments made: No. 112A, in page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) Any function—

(a) which is transferred to, or conferred or imposed on, the Authority by or under this Act or any other Act (whenever passed), and
(b) which (apart from this subsection) is not made exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Mayor, by the Assembly, or by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly,

shall be exercisable only by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.'.

No. 113A, in page 17, line 27, leave out 'Subsection (3) above is' and insert

'Subsections (2) and (3) above are'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 33

GENERAL DUTIES OF THE MAYOR IN RELATION TO HIS STRATEGIES

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 19, line 22, at end insert—
'(i) the strategy for the River Thames prepared and published under section (The River Thames) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—The River Thames—

'(1) The Mayor shall prepare and publish a document to be known as the "River Thames Strategy".
(2) The River Thames Strategy shall contain the Mayor's proposals and policies for the use, enhancement and protection of the river and riverside known as the "Thames Policy Area".
(3) In preparing the strategy the Mayor shall seek to promote and encourage holistic and integrated approaches to the strategically significant features of the river:

(a) River Transport,
(b) River Economy,
(c) River Ecology and Wildlife Habitats,
(d) River Heritage and the Built Environment,
(e) Recreation and Leisure, and
(f) Public Access, Amenity and Open Spaces,

and may contain such other proposals and policies relating to the River Thames as the Mayor may consider appropriate.


(4) The River Thames Strategy shall contain information about:

(a) the measures that are to be taken for the implementation of River Thames Strategy by the Authority, Transport for London, and the London Development Agency,
(b) the measures that other persons or bodies are to be encouraged to take by the Mayor, and
(c) how the strategy complies with the Rio Principles on Sustainable Development.

(5) In preparing or revising the River Thames Strategy the Mayor shall consult:

(a) the Port of London Authority,
(b) the Environment Agency,
(c) each riparian London Borough Council,
(d) the Common Council,
(e) British Waterways, and
(f) any other person or body who the Mayor considers it is appropriate to consult.'.

Mr. Hughes: This amendment is even less hopeful of success than the previous one.

Mr. Ottaway: The prospects are about the same.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is probably right.
This is a probing amendment. Clause 33 contains a list of the mayor's strategies. It applies to transport, London development, spatial development, biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality, ambient noise and culture. Our amendment and the new clause seek to add a strategy for the River Thames.
The reason why we have tabled the amendment—people who are interested can see how we amplify it in new clause 13, which sets out all the inter-related parts of the proposal—is that the Thames not only is a hugely important principal item in London, and therefore will be governed by London government, but links many other things. One cannot have an environmental strategy, for example, that does not impinge also on the Thames.
The Thames has suffered from the lack of a coherent strategy pulling together the strands, and we thought that it would be better if we were explicit in providing such a strategy in the Bill. Although I have no doubt that London's government will want to address Thames issues, it would be helpful if those issues were addressed—to use ministerial phraseology—within an overarching or intertwining provision. A specific Thames strategy is not provided anywhere else in the Bill.

Mrs. Theresa May: Speaking as an hon. Member whose constituency includes one of the fine stretches of the River Thames, I find the hon. Gentleman's suggestion a little difficult to accept. Is he really suggesting that the mayor of London should set the strategy for the whole of the River Thames?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady was spared the Committee stage, when we discussed such issues. Of course I am not suggesting that the London mayor should do that. The River Thames Society and other bodies deal with the Thames, not only in her constituency, but beyond it to the sea. However, London Thames issues unite all the riparian boroughs, and the GLA will have a responsibility to address them. We believe that it would be sensible to have in London a coherent approach in dealing with the matter.

Mr. Ottaway: As we said, ad nauseam, in Committee—if the hon. Member for Southwark,

North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me—although the River Thames is important, we rather share the Government's view that there is no reason why Thames issues should be singled out for special treatment, and that transport policies and various other strategies will deal with the points made by the Liberal Democrats. So far as I can see, the amendments would only impose additional bureaucratic burdens. The odd thing about the new clause is the Liberal Democrats' proposal that the assembly should not make the decisions on the matter.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Government fully support the need to protect and enhance the environment and the economy of the Thames. We continue to promote and implement the policies set out in strategic guidance for the River Thames. We are working with the London Planning Advisory Committee to encourage the London boroughs to incorporate those policies in their unitary development plans. We continue to work to promote and maintain use of the river for transporting freight and waste. We are also bringing to fruition the Thames 2000 initiative, which will shortly ensure that public passenger transport services are back on the river.
Amendment No. 64 and new clause 13 propose that the mayor should produce a separate document, known as the River Thames strategy, containing proposals and policies for the use, enhancement and protection of the Thames policy area, and proposing an holistic and integrated approach to the strategically significant features of the Thames. Those are laudable aims, and I wholeheartedly support them. However, I should tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the proposed provisions are irrelevant, as their aims are already covered by the Bill.
We have made specific provision—in clause 248, for the spatial development strategy—to be able to cover specific parts of London, such as the Thames, in more detail, in the same way as the Thames guidance currently does. The mayor will, therefore, be able to include in the SDS policies addressing, for example, the wide-ranging topics of the river's built and natural environment, its use for leisure and recreation, and its role in passenger and freight transportation.
The Secretary of State's strategic guidance will remain in place until replaced by the SDS. At that point, it will be for the mayor to reproduce, or even to improve upon, current policies on the Thames. However, it is not a matter that we feel needs to be, or even should be, prescribed in the Bill.
Additionally, clause 33—to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred—provides that, when preparing or revising any strategy, the mayor has to have regard to the desirability of promoting and encouraging use of the River Thames. The important role of the Thames will, therefore, be integral to consideration of all mayoral strategies. That will ensure that, for example, the waste strategy considers use of the Thames for transportation, and that the biodiversity plan deals with the importance of public access. Therefore, as the Thames runs through the centre of London, so it—and considerations of sustainability—will run throughout all the mayor's strategies.
I hope that I have reassured the House that the very important strategic role of the River Thames is adequately provided for in the Bill, and that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will see fit to withdraw amendment No. 64.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am reassured not only by the Government's very good commitment—which, as a London Member, I welcome—to all the initiatives on the Thames that they have taken in the past year, but by the fact that the spatial development strategy will allow a Thames-specific strategy to be included. On that basis, it would be entirely appropriate to let the current provisions remain in the legislation, which we can always, if necessary, amend later.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 114A, in page 19, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) In preparing or revising any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Mayor shall have regard to—

(a) the principal purposes of the Authority;
(b) the effect which the proposed strategy or revision would have on—

(i) the health of persons in Greater London; and
(ii) the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom; and

(c) the matters specified in subsection (5) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 68, in page 19, line 37, at end insert—
'(aa) national policies,'.
No. 69, in page 19, line 38, leave out 'national policies and'.
Government amendments Nos. 115 to 118.

Mr. Raynsford: The mayor's strategies will provide the framework within which the authority and its functional bodies operate. They will also provide the framework within which, in certain circumstances, the London boroughs, and other public bodies and organisations, operate within London. It is, therefore, vital that the strategies should have regard to the authority's own principal purposes—which we have already debated—and also to wider national and international considerations which will impact on the quality of life of Londoners. The authority cannot, and will not, be operating in a vacuum.
Amendments Nos. 114A and 118, therefore, require the mayor, in preparing or revising any strategy, to have regard to the authority's principal purposes, as stated in new clause 32, and to consider the effect that such strategies would have on the health of Londoners and on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
The mayor is also required to include policies that he or she considers best calculated to promote improvements in the health of people in London, and that would—for reasons that I outlined in the previous debate—contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK.
In both of those cases, and in others—for example, the integrated transport plan—the mayor cannot act in isolation: what happens or is done in London will have an effect elsewhere. The mayor's strategies must, therefore, be consistent with national policies, and with international obligations, when they have been adopted.
I therefore cannot accept amendments Nos. 68 and 69—which were tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—which would have the effect of making the mayor have regard to national policies, but not of making him or her produce strategies that were consistent with such national policies. That would be clear nonsense. The GLA, like all other authorities in England, will operate within a framework of national policies and legislation. It simply cannot go its own way and disregard the framework willy-nilly.
Amendment No. 115 replaces the current requirement that the mayor must have regard to the need to ensure that any strategy is consistent with international obligations with a less onerous obligation requiring the mayor to ensure that his or her policies are consistent with international obligations notified to the mayor by the Secretary of State.
International obligations are placed on the state, and it must be for the state to decide if or how those are to be met. It is difficult to see how the mayor could possibly meet the obligation as previously drafted, as a huge international secretariat would be required to establish whether any international obligation was being breached. Amendment No. 115 is, therefore, a common-sense amendment, and I hope that the House will agree it.
Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are both drafting amendments.
I hope that the House will accept the Government amendments in this group, and that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will not press amendments Nos. 68 and 69.

Mr. Ottaway: The Opposition agree with the broad thrust of the Minister's comments. However, I think that he should pay attention to the points on strategies made by London First in its briefing on Report. The briefing, after listing the strategies, states:
the Mayor will have few, or no, powers over some of the agencies directly responsible for the above strategies. There is too much emphasis on process, and not enough on delivery.
That goes to the heart of our central complaint, in Committee, about the provision.
London First continues:
We look forward to hearing the Government's considered view on the proposed opposition amendment
on performance indicators and strategies. No such amendment has been tabled, but the Minister should be able to tell us how he expects to monitor the effectiveness of the strategies that have been set out in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 reflect the difference of view between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on how independent and self-governing London should be. We have always argued for regional government, not citywide government. A regional government for London could reasonably be expected to have regard to national policy without being required to follow such policy. What may be appropriate


across England may not be appropriate in London. We are all bound by the international obligations to which the United Kingdom signs up, but there is no reason why London should not differ from a general strategy for England. We have never been persuaded that there must be conformity and homogeneity. We retain our view, although we accept that the Government like to hang on to everything at the centre, as this short debate has shown.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) quoted from a London First briefing when saying that we were focusing too much on the process and not enough on performance. I have frequent contact with London First and a great deal of respect for it, but I believe that it is wrong in this case. The strategies are the framework for action. We want to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to be involved in their preparation. It is vital that business should be fully consulted in the preparation of the strategies that will guide London's economic development policies. We have to get the process right.
Once the strategies are in place, they should guide the process of implementation and ensure that the objectives that we have discussed are met. That covers wealth creation, social development and environmental improvement. The authority is about getting results, improving the quality of life for Londoners and creating a more prosperous and successful city. If we get the strategies right and ensure a framework that allows the mayor and authority to implement them, we shall secure the progress that we want.
I am sorry that we have failed to persuade the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that his slightly anarchic view of the role of London in relation to the rest of the country is inappropriate. As on many other matters, the Liberal Democrats are out of step with the general thrust of opinion in the country, which wants a good measure of independence and devolved decision making within a framework that secures the national interest. We do not want an anarchic framework in which some parts of the country act on their own with no regard to the impact on other parts of the country. That is not a recipe for good government or the future health and well-being of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman presses his amendments, I urge the House to vote against them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 19, line 39, leave out 'international obligations' and insert
'with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify to the Mayor for the purposes of this paragraph'.

No. 116, in page 19, line 43, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 44.

No. 117, in page 20, line 3, at end insert—
'(5A) The Mayor—

(a) in considering whether any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above needs to be revised,
(b) in implementing any such strategy, or
(c) in exercising in relation to the spatial development strategy any of his functions under sections 248 to 256 below,

shall have regard to the matters specified in subsection (5) above.'.

No. 118, in page 20, line 3, at end insert—
'(5B) Where the Mayor prepares or revises any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above, he shall include such of the available policies and proposals relating to the subject matter of the strategy as he considers best calculated—

(a) to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London, and
(b) to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom,

except to the extent that he considers that any action that would need to be taken by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.
(5C) In subsection (5B)(a) above, the reference to promoting improvements in health includes a reference to mitigating any detriment to health which would otherwise be occasioned by the strategy or revision.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 20, leave out lines 5 to 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 123 to 125 and 127.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendments are drafting amendments, bringing together, in clause 305, the interpretation clause, the definition of national policies that appears in several different places in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree with these sensible, but entirely technical, amendments.

Mr. Ottaway: The amendments provide a better structure for the definition of national policies. However, our fundamental objection remains. A national policy to which the mayor must have regard is whatever the Government say it is. It is based not on a decision of the House, but on an arbitrary decision of the Government. Any paper that they lay here counts as policy. The Government laid a transport White Paper a few months ago. I am sure that they will implement many of its provisions, but I suspect that an awful lot of it will not be implemented. It is unacceptable for the mayor to be bound by policies that the Government have no intention of implementing. National policy should be that which has been subject to a resolution of the House, not a Government diktat.
Putting a definition in clause 305 is an improvement on the random dotting around the Bill, but I place on record our disquiet about the use of the words "national policies".

Sir Sydney Chapman: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has said. I may be speaking to a slightly wider agenda, but this is the right time to make my points. Many Londoners believe that there will be considerable devolution of power from the national Government to the mayor and the Greater London assembly. Very few powers, if any, have been devolved from the Secretary of State, but many have been taken from below from the boroughs. The Government claim to be serious about devolving power to Londoners, as they are with the Scottish Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the Welsh Assembly. Many Londoners will be disappointed that the Bill is merely a fig leaf of devolved power with very little substance.

Mr. Raynsford: The Government are not taking powers predominantly from other tiers of local


government and refusing to devolve power from central Government. The main new powers for the Greater London Authority involve substantial devolution from central Government, where responsibility for transport services in London and the Metropolitan police lies. The new authority will be given real powers. That is part of the process of devolution.
Only the Liberal Democrats would normally dissent from the view that such an authority should have regard to national policies. London is part of the country. There is no difference between us and the Conservatives on that. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) expressed concern about the definition of national polices. Some key areas in which the Conservatives have expressed a lot of interest recently, including planning policy on development and new housing in the green belt, would not be covered by a definition limited to items that had been approved by the House. Planning policy guidance note 3 is being seen as an important document in guiding policy. The more limited definition that the hon. Gentleman would apparently prefer would make it possible for such items to be disregarded. It would not be sensible for the mayor of London not to have regard to new planning policy guidance or other documents issued by the Government that are not subject to approval by the House. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is misplaced. In practice—

It being half-past seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [30 April].

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 34

CONSULTATION

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 20, line 23, at end insert—
'(1A) In determining what consultation (if any) is appropriate under subsection (1)(e) above, the bodies which, and persons whom, the Mayor considers consulting must include bodies of each of the descriptions specified in section (Consultation)(3) above.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 49

REVIEW AND INVESTIGATION BY THE ASSEMBLY

Amendments made: No. 121, in page 26, line 16, leave out
'The power of the Assembly under subsection (1) includes'

and insert
For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the powers of the Assembly include'.

No. 122, in page 26, line 19, at end insert—
'(bb) matters relating to the principal purposes of the Authority,'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

New Clause 32

THE GENERAL POWER OF THE AUTHORITY

'.—(1)The Authority shall have power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes.

(2) Any reference in this Act to the principal purposes of the Authority is a reference to the purposes of—

(a) promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London;
(b) promoting social development in Greater London; and
(c) promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London.

(3) In determining whether or how to exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) above to further any one or more of its principal purposes, the Authority shall have regard to the desirability of so exercising that power as to—

(a) further the remaining principal purpose or purposes, so far as reasonably practicable to do so; and
(b) secure, over a period of time, a reasonable balance between furthering each of its principal purposes.

(4) In determining whether or how to exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) above, the Authority shall have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on—

(a) the health of persons in Greater London; and
(b) the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.

(5) Where the Authority exercises the power conferred by subsection (1) above, it shall do so in the way which it considers best calculated—

(a) to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London, and
(b) to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom,

except to the extent that the Authority considers that any action that would need to be taken by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.

(6) In subsection (5)(a) above, the reference to promoting improvements in health includes a reference to mitigating any detriment to health which would otherwise be occasioned by the exercise of the power.

(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the Authority concerning the exercise by the Authority of the power conferred by subsection (1) above.

(8) In deciding whether or how to exercise that power, the Authority shall have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (7) above.

(9) Any guidance issued under subsection (7) above shall be published by the Secretary of State in such manner as he considers appropriate.

(10) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority under or by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

LIMITS OF THE GENERAL POWER

'.—(1) The Authority shall not by virtue of section (The general power of the Authority)(1) above incur expenditure in doing anything which may be done by a functional body other than the London Development Agency.

(2) In determining whether to exercise the power conferred by section (The general power of the Authority)(1) above, the Authority shall seek to secure that it does not incur expenditure in doing anything which is being done by the London Development Agency.

(3) The Authority shall not by virtue of section (The general power of the Authority)(1) above incur expenditure in providing—

(a) any housing,
(b) any education services,
(c) any social services, or
(d) any health services,

in any case where the provision in question may be made by a London borough council, the Common Council or any other public body.

(4) Any reference in subsection (3) above to the provision of housing—

(a) includes a reference to the management of housing; but
(b) does not include a reference to the acquisition by the Authority of existing housing accommodation and the making of that accommodation available on a temporary basis for one or more of the principal purposes of the Authority or for purposes incidental to such a purpose.

(5) Any reference in subsection (3) above to the provision of social services is a reference to the exercise of—

(a) any function under any enactment for the time being specified in Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, or
(b) any function for the time being designated by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 2(2) of that Act as being appropriate for discharge through a local authority's social services committee.

(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) above shall be taken to prevent the Authority incurring expenditure in co-operating with, or facilitating or co-ordinating the activities of, the bodies mentioned in those subsections.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order amending this section make further provision for preventing the Authority from doing by virtue of section (The general power of the Authority)(1) above anything—

(a) which may be done by a London borough council, the Common Council or a public body, and
(b) which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.

(8) The Secretary of State may by order impose limits on the expenditure which may be incurred by the Authority by virtue of section (The general power of the Authority)(1) above.

(9) The Secretary of State may by order amending this section make provision removing or restricting any prohibitions or limitations imposed by this section on what may be done by the Authority by virtue of section (The general power of the Authority)(1) above.'.— [Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34

CONSULTATION

'.—(1) The power conferred by section (The general power of the Authority)(1) above is exercisable only after consultation with such bodies or persons as the Authority may consider appropriate in the particular case.

(2) In determining what consultation (if any) is appropriate under subsection (1) above, the bodies which, and persons whom, the Authority considers consulting must include—

(a) any London borough council;
(b) the Common Council; and
(c) bodies of each of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) below.

(3) Those descriptions are—

(a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of Greater London;

(b) bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in Greater London;
(c) bodies which represent the interests of different religious groups in Greater London;
(d) bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London.

(4) The Authority may make arrangements with—

(a) any London borough council,
(b) the Common Council,
(c) bodies of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) above, and
(d) such other bodies or persons as it may consider appropriate,

for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Authority of consultation pursuant to this section or any other provision of this Act.

(5) The functions conferred on the Authority under or by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 86

GLA TRANSPORT GRANT

Mr. Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 48, line 33, at end insert
'but the amount of the grant shall increase by at least the annual rate of the Retail Price Index in each year beginning from the Authority's second financial year.'.
In briefly outlining the purpose of the amendment, it may be instructive if I look first at the history of London Underground. As we all know, investment in London Underground has gone up and down unpredictably over many years. We now understand that, in 2000, investment in London Underground will stop altogether, according to the Government's spending plans.
The amendment would provide some stability in terms of investment and planning. We must avoid a return to the present situation, where London Underground has a substantial backlog of repairs. Some £7 billion-worth of repairs have built up, and that would not have occurred had a guaranteed level of investment or grant been available to London Transport over a long period.
The House could argue about the appropriate level of resources, and about whether the retail prices index is the right level. However, it cannot be disputed that we need a guaranteed level of funding over a long period to enable London Underground and the bus companies to plan their investment programmes without having to second-guess what might happen in four or five years.
No doubt the Government are taking into account the revenues that will be accrued through congestion charges and workplace car parking charges. However, those sources of revenue are extremely unpredictable. In theory, if congestion charges and workplace car parking charges do their job, one would expect that, in five, 10 or 15 years—when we have a completely integrated, comfortable and safe public transport system—no-one will be driving their cars at all, and the revenue from such charges will dry up. That reinforces the need for a level of funding to be provided over a long period, which is the purpose of the amendment.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Government amendments in this group change in various ways the financial


arrangements for the GLA in part III of the Bill. I trust that it will be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to outline briefly our proposals with regard to concessionary fares within London. That is an issue of particular importance to the elderly and the disabled.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Minister is speaking to the previous group of amendments. Amendment No. 27 is about the amount of the grant. If she is not, I apologise, but her remarks do not appear to relate to the one and only amendment that has been selected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. No doubt the Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that the previous group of amendments was not spoken to, and I am aware of the group to which we are speaking. It seems appropriate in the circumstances briefly to detail our proposals with regard to concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled people in London, as we are dealing with finance for Transport for London. I will touch on the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) later.
The present legislative arrangements for travel concessions are provided by the London boroughs, and have been in place for almost 15 years. Clearly, the Bill must make provision for those travel concessions to continue. We have given careful consideration to a number of proposals for improving the scheme. As a result, we will table amendments in the other place that will update the scheme, thus helping to maintain its stability.
For the statutory reserve scheme, the start and finish times will be brought into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme. Arrangements for determining the costs of the reserve scheme will be clarified. We are also planning to give the boroughs powers to set up a statutory joint committee dealing with concessionary fares, which will have the option of taking decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is clearly the speech for the previous group of amendments, which the guillotine prevented us from debating. We are happy—if you will allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to respond to the Minister's remarks. I hope that if the Minister is having the latitude to speak on what is clearly the previous group of amendments, the same latitude will be afforded to others, and we will not just have the Minister trying to justify the Government's difficult-to-justify position without my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) putting his case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister stated that she craved the indulgence of the House to refer briefly to wider issues. The Minister ought now to concentrate her remarks on amendment No. 27, as she has gone as far as she ought to on other matters.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Financial arrangements are tailored to the model of London governance for which the Bill provides. There will be a strong executive mayor and an assembly to provide scrutiny. There will be four new functional bodies, dedicated to delivering key Londonwide services. Transport for London and the London development agency will be separate corporate bodies, directly accountable to the mayor, who will set their budgets and strategies and appoint their boards. The Metropolitan police authority and the London fire and emergency planning authority will be authorities in their own right. The mayor will set their budgets and appoint assembly members who will form the majority of members of each authority.
The financial framework in part III provides the mayor with flexibility to allocate resources in line with mayoral priorities. It ensures that the GLA and each of the functional bodies have responsibility for managing their own financial affairs. It makes it easier for Londoners to understand how they contribute, and it fulfils our commitment that the GLA would be subject to the local government finance requirements with modifications needed to reflect its undoubtedly unique role.
The GLA transport grant will draw together money that the Government now pay to all Transport for London's predecessor bodies and to the London boroughs through transport policies and programmes. This will provide the baseline for the first year's budget. After the first year, the Secretary of State will determine the amount of grant after consulting with the mayor. In other words, they will negotiate.
The mayor will make clear what level of resources central Government must provide to deliver the transport strategy and what the effect of inflation will be. The Secretary of State will consider the mayor's proposals against the demands of the rest of the country. That is the right way for the level of transport grant to be determined. Increases must be properly justified.
Amendment No. 27 would be entirely counterproductive. It could deter the Secretary of State from making a one-off additional payment to the mayor; for example, to provide funding for a significant project. If the amendment were accepted, what Secretary of State would be prepared ever to provide additional amounts if the Government had to continue and increase those large sums long after the need for them had passed? It is hardly an incentive to increase resources, and it is most certainly not a recipe for best value. The Government have made available an extra £1.8 billion over the next three years to deliver our integrated transport strategy. We need, and will take, no lessons from others about the importance of proper funding for transport. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Brake: I am afraid that the Minister failed to respond to our principal concern, that the GLA should be provided with a guaranteed level of funding over the time frame that is required for investment and planning purposes. With the Government's proposals, the uncertainties will remain.
I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's response, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 285.

Division No. 163]
[7.40 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Ballard, Jackie
Keetch, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Brake, Tom
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brand, Dr Peter 
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Breed, Colin
Sanders, Adrian


Burnett, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Willis, Phil


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies



(NE Fife)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Dr. Jenny Tonge.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Allen, Graham
Crausby, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
 Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cummings, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Austin, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Banks, Tony
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Darvill, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Dawson, Hilton


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
 Dean, Mrs Janet


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Denham, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dismore, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Berry, Roger
Drew, David


Best, Harold
Drown, Ms Julia


Betts, Clive
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Efford, Clive


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Boateng, Paul
Ennis, Jeff


Borrow, David
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fisher, Mark


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzpatrick, Jim 


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Caplin, Ivor
Gapes, Mike


Casale, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Goggins, Paul


Clwyd, Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coleman, Iain 
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Colman, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grogan, John


Corbett, Robin
Gunnell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Corston, Ms Jean 
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cousins, Jim
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet





Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
 Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin 


Hesford, Stephen 
Moffatt, Laura


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hinchliffe, David
Mountford, Kali


Hodge, Ms Margaret
 Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoon, Geoffrey 
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Lindsay
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Humble, Mrs Joan 
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Iddon, Dr Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian
 Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
 Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pond, Chris


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


(Wolverhlon SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Quinn, Lawrie


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rapson, Syd


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kemp, Fraser
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Jeff


Kidney, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ruane, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruddock, Joan


Kingham, Ms Tess
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Salter, Martin


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Sawford, Phil


Laxton, Bob
Sheerman, Barry


Lepper, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leslie, Christopher
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Livingstone, Ken
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lock, David
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Love, Andrew 
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCabe, Steve
Soley, Clive


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Speller, John


McDonagh, Siobhain
Squire, Ms Rachel


McDonnell, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stoate, Dr Howard


McWalter, Tony 
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John 
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mahon, Mrs Alice 
Stringer, Graham


Mallaber, Judy 
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) 
(Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Teylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Martlew, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxton, John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Timms, Stephen






Tipping, Paddy
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Todd, Mark
Wicks, Malcolm


Trickett, Jon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Truswell, Paul
(Swansea W)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) 
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wise, Audrey


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, David
Mr. David Jamieson and


White, Brian
Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

LIMITATION OF PRECEPTS

'Chapter IVA of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (limitation of council tax and precepts), as inserted by Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1999, shall not apply to the Greater London Authority:.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 would exclude the Greater London Authority from rate capping and council tax capping. It would give the GLA the freedom to which local government aspires. The Government have moved some way towards that freedom, but they have not yet given it to local government.
In Committee and on Second Reading, we debated what sort of beast the GLA will be. We had always understood—and it was the Government's position before the election—that London would have regional government. That has shifted over the past two years to citywide government and local government. Ministers have described the GLA in various ways, but it is a creature all to itself. We are not against that, except that we feel that it should be a regional government creature, not a local government creature. However it is defined, it is clearly not the local authority delivering first-tier services in London, because there are 33 of those—32 boroughs and the City of London—and they will remain.
If the GLA is to match the aspirations of the people of London, if we want the mayor and the assembly not to disappoint people and if we want the hype that will surround the GLA' s election next year to be justified, we must give it as much financial freedom as possible. There were only ever two options for doing that. The first was to allow a variation in the tax that could be collected in London. That power has been given to the Scottish Parliament, although the Labour party has promised that it would not use that power initially. The Welsh Assembly has not been given that power. We argued that London's government should be given tax-varying powers—up or down—but the Government regard that as too great a concession and too great a degree of devolution. No doubt they did not want to lose control of that issue.
The second option is contained in new clause 7. It is a more modest proposal and it would at least allow the GLA to decide how much money it sought from Londoners without having to ask the Government's permission. One of the themes of debates on the Bill has been how much the Secretary of State will have control over everything that the GLA will do. We wrung a concession out of the Government in Committee which will mean that traffic wardens' uniforms will not be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. That was a great concession that London could be trusted to decide such matters on its own.
Sadly, when it comes to the big decisions, the Government wish to retain hold of the apron strings. We hope that the Government will take this opportunity to give Londoners more of the powers they want for their new authority next year. The Government should be generous and allow London to decide on London's finances.

Mr. Ottaway: We do not support new clause 7, although not for the reasons that the Minister might expect. The Conservatives believe that it is a desirable long-term objective to get rid of rate capping.

Mr. Hughes: But not yet.

Mr. Ottaway: We happen not to be in office at the moment, so we could not get rid of it.

Mr. John Smith: Not for a long time.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman should not count his chickens.
It is difficult to get rid of rate capping in isolation. It has to be done in conjunction with other reforms to ensure that local government expenditure does not run out of control. There were many good reasons for introducing rate capping. Lord Callaghan said in the 1970s that the party was over for local government spending, and the rate-capping regime followed.
Although the proposal in new clause 7 is desirable, we will be unable to support the Liberal Democrats on it. One cannot take one authority in isolation and exempt it. If rate capping is to be abolished, it has to be for all local authorities, equally and fairly. We share the Liberal Democrats, sentiments about rate capping. Indeed, I suspect getting rid of rate capping is a common objective. However, it is many years since we had a Liberal Government and the harsh realities of office are such that it is a bigger job than they think. We agree with the principle, but we are unable to support the new clause.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had a revealing debate. We heard further evidence of the Tory party U-turn process, in which it is dissociating itself from what it stood for in government, and we had another example of the Liberal Democrat nirvana in which everything is possible if we would only give as much power as possible to devolved assemblies and let them do what they want with no regard to anything else that is happening. We reject both approaches.
We made it clear in the White Paper that the GLA would be subject to the same arrangements for limiting


council tax increases as local authorities generally. The GLA is sui generis a citywide authority, but it will operate within the local government ambit and its revenues will come from traditional local government sources—precepts, non-domestic rates and Government grant. Therefore, it should be subject to exactly the same disciplines as other local government authorities, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) rightly stressed.
Replacing crude and universal capping with reserve powers for limiting council tax and precepts fulfils a manifesto commitment given by the Government. The reserve powers will be far more flexible than the system put in place by the previous Administration. The Government have a duty to protect local tax payers and must have those reserve powers, but we have made it clear that we hope that we will not have to use them—for the GLA or for any local authority.
New clause 7 is not only unacceptable; it is irresponsible and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall remind Ministers of that when they get rid of the Prescott version of capping, as they say they intend to do. We will continue to press for the walls of central Government to crumble before devolution until we have succeeded. It seems that the Government will not give in tonight, but we will return to the issue. Reluctantly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

8 pm

Clause 125

DIRECTION BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 67, line 14, leave out 'transport policy' and insert 'policies relating to transport'.

No. 124, in page 67, line 21, leave out subsection (3).—[Ms Glenda Jackson.]

Schedule 8

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON

Ms Glenda Jackson: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 188, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
'(c) a Member of the House of Lords,'.
Schedule 8 disqualifies politicians, including peers, from membership of the Transport for London board. However, as the House of Lords Bill will disqualify hereditary peers from the House of Lords, they will no longer be politicians and should therefore not be excluded from membership of the TfL Board. This amendment would exclude Members of the House of Lords from the TfL board, rather than peers in general. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 165

RAILWAYS

Mr. Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 85, line 36, at end insert—
'(6A) The Franchising Director shall consult the Mayor before proposing any changes to rail services which will affect the level of provision of rail services in Greater London.'.
The amendment would give the mayor greater powers—or at least a greater say—over rail services in London. I hope that all hon. Members agree that London needs an integrated transport strategy. Such a policy should include the tube, buses and trains. Regrettably, rail at present is missing from the integrated transport strategy.
The mayor will have control over buses. He or she eventually will have a degree of influence over the tube. If the Government's public-private partnership proposals collapse, the mayor may have much greater control over the tube system. However, the rail system remains outside the mayor's grasp.
That is very bad news for commuters. Today's briefing from the Save Our Railways campaign identifies 91 London centres that will miss out because the mayor does not have control over rail. I believe that the list should contain 94 such centres, the three missing from the original list being Beddington, Wallington and Hackbridge. All such centres will miss out because rail services will not be integrated fully into the mayor's powers or responsibilities. The amendment would enable the mayor to have a complete strategy for controlling all aspects of transport in London, and not leave out the rail service, which is a major people-mover.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I trust that I will be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the mayor's powers in connection with surface rail and about the underground. I assure him that there is no danger of the public-private partnership collapsing, and the mayoral power will be complete when the underground transfers into Transport for London, after the successful completion of the public-private partnership.
Amendment No. 34 would place a duty on the franchising director to consult the mayor before proposing any changes to rail services which will affect the level of provision of rail services in Greater London.
Again, however, there is no need for this amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will find that consoling. As I made clear in Standing Committee, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage that will place a duty on the franchising director to consult the mayor on the level of provision of services within London. Our intention is that the duty on the franchising director will be similar to that currently imposed on him in respect of London Transport by section 31A of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. This duty will be in addition to the duty of co-operation placed on the franchising director and Transport for London by clause 137.
I should also like to say a few words about how we intend that the Bill should deal with the mayor's powers in respect of the national rail network. There was substantial debate in Standing Committee of our proposals in this area. Some hon. Members expressed concern—and we
have heard it again today—that the mayor's rail powers needed to be further strengthened. In the event, the Committee endorsed the principle behind the relevant clauses and decided that they did not require amendment at that stage. However, I indicated to the Committee that the Government would consider bringing forward some amendments at a later stage in particular areas.
I am now in a position to indicate to the House the nature of the amendments that we envisage. Although it has not been possible to prepare those amendments for consideration on Report, we intend to table the amendments for consideration in the other place.
The aim of this package of amendments will be to fine-tune the balance between the real powers that the mayor will have, and the wider national objectives of the franchising director and his successor, the Strategic Rail Authority. The principle to which we are adhering is that, although the mayor should have a significant degree of influence over London's railways, that influence should complement and not detract from the need for the Strategic Rail Authority to take an overall strategic view and to address the key issues facing Britain's railways.
I should make it clear that this Bill, of necessity, refers to the franchising director rather than the Strategic Rail Authority. Subject to parliamentary approval, the functions given to the franchising director by the Bill will eventually be inherited by the Strategic Rail Authority.
I shall turn to the specific amendments that we propose. First, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage that will provide for the mayor to issue instructions as well as guidance to the franchising director, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of clause 165. That was an issue to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who unfortunately is not in his place, drew attention during the Standing Committee's consideration of the clauses on railways, although his suggestion was that the mayor should be able to issue directions to the franchising director, rather than simply guidance.
The amendment that we propose is designed to bring the mayor's powers more closely into line with those of the Secretary of State who, by virtue of section 5 of the Railways Act 1993, is able to issue both instructions and guidance to the franchising director. The 1993 Act does not empower the Secretary of State to issue directions to the franchising director, and so I hope that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Carshalton and Wallington will accept that our formulation is more appropriate.
Secondly, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage to make it clear that the franchising director is to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance
in the manner best calculated to give effect to the instructions and guidance".
This would replace the Bill's current wording, which simply requires the franchising director to implement the mayor's guidance. This would be a technical amendment, again designed to harmonise the Bill's wording with that in section 5(1) of the Railways Act 1993, imposing a duty on the franchising director similar to that which he is currently under in respect of instructions and guidance issued to him by the Secretary of State.
Thirdly, we shall table an amendment to the effect that the mayor's instructions and guidance to the franchising director shall include instructions in respect of additional railway services to be procured by the franchising director on behalf of the authority. That is so that the franchising director can ensure that the best use is made of scarce track capacity on the London rail network, and can advise the mayor on the best way of meeting his or her requirements for additional services.
Fourthly, we shall table an amendment to clarify the position where there is a conflict between the instructions and guidance issued by the mayor and those issued by the Secretary of State. The amendment will make it clear that, while it is for the Secretary of State to set the overall strategic policy for the railways in Britain, it will be open to the mayor to issue instructions and guidance on operational matters which impact directly on users of rail services in London.
We shall also table an amendment to deal with the procurement of additional rail services and facilities by London local authorities other than the Greater London Authority. We intend to table an amendment in the Lords to give the mayor the power to promote new network improvements and to comment on or oppose proposals advanced by others. That will be done by giving the mayor the ability to promote and oppose local Bills in Parliament and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
We believe that that package of amendments will more fully define the relationship between the mayor and the franchising director and give each of them a clear framework of co-operation within which to work. As we made clear in the London White Paper, the franchising director and the Strategic Rail Authority will retain the final say over rail, but the mayor will have a crucial role to play in improving London's rail services and will have the powers needed to make a difference. In that light, I trust that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wilkinson: I apologise for intervening after missing the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). However, the Minister's statement is of such significance that it cannot go unanswered. She made a series of pronouncements that should be incorporated in new clauses. She said that references to the national rail network in this part of the Bill will in future often relate to the Strategic Rail Authority. The mayoralty will have powers beyond guidance to the franchising director in the form of instructions. The mayoralty will have a strategic responsibility vis-a-vis the railways in London that was not envisaged when the Bill was published. The changes were not mooted by the Government on Second Reading or in Committee.
I greatly welcome the new provisions because if the Greater London Authority is to be genuinely strategic, one of the most important strategic functions is the co-ordination and rationalisation of the provision of public transport in the capital. It made little sense for the mayoralty to be able to issue guidance to the franchising director but to be unable to make dispositions as to the facilities and resources necessary to bring about the co-ordination that is central to the mayoralty's role.
I hope that their Lordships will give those matters the closest scrutiny. I welcome the outline of the new provisions but several questions are begged by the


Minister's observations. As she admitted, there could be conflict between the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State and the mayoralty to the franchising director. There will be a mechanism to resolve that conflict, but Londoners will want the mayor and his authority to have the predominant power to bring about the rationalisation of public transport facilities in the railway sector that the Bill was intended to achieve and that it has hitherto lacked the mechanism to bring about. The Government are moving in the right direction, but I wish that they had spelt it out much more clearly a lot earlier.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for her statement, which is of some significance. I welcome her announcement that the Government will table amendments in the other place. It is important that they fine-tune arrangements between the mayor and the franchising director and between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority. I hope that that will shift the balance of power away from the franchising director towards the mayor, as I think the Minister said would happen. The views of the mayor and of Londoners should be paramount in discussing London rail services. I welcome the fact that the mayor will be able to promote new services. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I wish briefly to respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). In Committee, I said:
We intend to table an amendment at a later stage that will place a duty on the franchising director".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 February 1999; c. 743.]
In some of our lengthy and substantial debates in Committee, I said that the Government were considering tabling amendments later on particular matters. That is what we have done. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's response to what I said. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for welcoming the Government's proposals and for his commitment to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Brake: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 199

PROVISIONS CONSEQUENT ON ALTERATION OF METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT

Mr. Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 104, line 29, leave out clause 199.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 66, in clause 239, page 129, line 24, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to subsection (1A) and (1B) below,'.

No. 65, in page 129, line 26, at end insert—
'(1A) With respect to the Acts shown in subsection (1B) below, the Metropolitan Police district is defined by the area shown in (1) above and the following areas:

(a) in the county of Essex, in the district of Epping Forest—
the area of the former urban district of Chigwell
the parish of Waltham Abbey;
(b) in the county of Hertfordshire—
in the borough of Broxbourne, the area of the former urban district of Cheshunt
the district of Hertsmere
in the district of Welwyn Hatfield, the parish of Northaw;
(c) in the county of Surrey—
in the borough of Elmbridge, the area of the former urban district of Esher
the boroughs of Epsom and Ewell and Spelthome
in the district of Reigate and Banstead, the area of the former district of Banstead.

(1B) Subsection (1A) above relates to the following Acts:

(i) The London Hackney Carriages Act 1843;
(ii) The London Hackney Carriages Act 1850;
(iii) The London Hackney Carriages Act 1853;
(iv) The London Hackney Carriages (No. 2) Act 1853;
(v) The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (in so far as it applies to London Hackney Carriages);
(vi) The London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907;
(vii) The London Cab Act 1968;
(viii) The Transport Act 1985 (in so far as it applies to London Hackney Carriages);
(ix) The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.'.

Mr. Davey: The amendments reflect a debate in Committee that did not focus on amendments that would have put into law the issues with which we were concerned. The Government want to make the boundaries of the Metropolitan police authority coterminous with those of the Greater London Authority. That makes sense for many aspects of its operation. It will help it to be more accountable. The establishment of the Metropolitan police authority in many ways requires the two sets of boundaries to be as one.
As with any boundary change, anomalies are thrown up. Our amendments seek to put right such an anomaly. They deal with the effect of the boundary change on taxi drivers who are regulated by the Metropolitan police authority under the legislation listed in the amendment. We believe that reducing the Metropolitan police district to being coterminous with the GLA will denude the market of many cab drivers, particularly those who ply in the suburbs. By fiat, the livelihoods of many of my constituents will be made more difficult because their lawful business will suffer from the loss of some customers.
We make no apologies for arguing again on Report on behalf of those constituents. They may support the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan police authority coming under democratic control, but they feel that they are being hard done by.
There seems to be no problem in retaining the current Metropolitan district simply for the purpose of regulating London cabs. As we pointed out in Standing Committee, that creates no real problem for the regulatory bodies—the police. I discussed with officers from the Metropolitan police and from the Surrey constabulary how such a
policy could be implemented. It was clear that it would create no problems for them on the ground. They would be able to distinguish who should take responsibility in which areas and to whom they would have to report any transgressions of the regulations. As there are no practical difficulties associated with the proposal, one has to ask why anybody should be opposed to it. I can see no particular reason, unless people with over-tidy minds need to ensure that each boundary looks nice on the map.
The Minister may recall that we had an interesting debate in Standing Committee, when I pressed her on several points during her response to my argument. At one stage, she seemed to suggest that my point was not valid because taxi drivers could be licensed by the new licensing authorities—for example, in my neck of the woods, the Elmbridge district council—and could also be licensed by the Metropolitan police authority. Taxi drivers could continue to earn their living in both taxi areas. I picked the Minister up on that point because it was news to me.
Cab drivers who are members of the Kingston and Surbiton cab drivers association have told me that it is most unusual to be able to be licensed by two authorities and that that is not allowed by the taxi regulatory authorities in many parts of the country. However, the Minister was clear on that point:
It will be entirely possible for cab drivers to drive a black cab if they hold a licence within the GLA and maintain the requirements for licensing. However, should they wish to drive a cab in districts outside the GLA boundary and outside what will be the Metropolitan police district boundary, they will have to obtain the requisite licence from the requisite local authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 March 1999; c. 925.]
The Minister made it clear that dual licensing was possible. When I pressed her on how that would be implemented practically, she clarified her remarks by saying that the licence was related to the vehicle and not to the owner. Therefore, if, in order to maintain their standard of living, drivers took up her suggestion, they would have to operate two cabs. They would need one for the GLA area and one for the area outside the GLA boundaries. One needs only to reflect on that proposition for one minute to see how impractical it would be. Not only would there be the cost of purchasing and maintaining two separate vehicles: there would be different health and vehicle checks every year under different regulations, and that would be extremely costly.
The solution offered by the Minister in Committee is not a practical answer to people whose livelihoods are affected by the proposal that we are debating. If the Minister can offer another alternative to protect the living of those cab drivers, we should be glad to discuss it. Our amendments would provide a solution that works within the remit of the current legislation and would ensure that it was clear in statute that the anomalous boundary distinction of keeping the current Metropolitan police district for cab drivers would apply only to cab drivers. It would not affect other aspects of the day-to-day duties of the Metropolitan police.
My hon. Friends and I believe that the amendments provide a constructive way forward that is more practical than the solution of dual licensing offered by the Minister

in Standing Committee. I hope that the Minister has reflected on the matter; we are keen that she should give us a positive answer.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Before I get to the meat of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I point out to him that the proposals that he has presented to the House as being helpful would in fact lead to a situation in which there would be no requirement for any licensing at all. I find it very odd that a member of the Liberal Democrat party, whose members constantly urge that power be devolved to local authorities, should present a proposal whereby local authorities would have no power whatever over allowing taxis to ply within their own areas, on their own streets and carrying their own taxpayers.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks as to the good sense that he and Members of his party perceived in the fact that the boundaries of the GLA and the new Metropolitan police district would be made coterminous. However, I regret to have to tell him that amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 make no sense at all. They would retain, for the purposes of taxi and minicab licensing only, the current Metropolitan police district. That would mean that taxis and minicabs operating in district council areas outside Greater London, but within the current Metropolitan police district, would be subject to regulation by Transport for London rather than the relevant district councils. However, the boundary would be notional; the Metropolitan police would have no role whatever.
Our White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", stated:
Responsibility for taxi and minicab licensing in councils' areas outside greater London, but partly or wholly within the Metropolitan Police District (MPD), will be transferred to the local District Council.
Even before the decision was taken—one that the hon. Gentleman and his party consider makes good sense—it has always been the policy to align the Metropolitan police district with Greater London. Districts outside London would regulate taxis and minicabs in their areas. In seeking to extend Transport for London's remit beyond Greater London, especially by making Transport for London responsible for taxi and minicab licensing outside Greater London, the amendments go against that principle.
Regardless of the anecdotal evidence that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House of the approach of the Surrey police to his proposals, they would cause untold confusion by implying that the Metropolitan police—seemingly linked to an area called the Metropolitan police district—would have a role in regulating taxis and minicabs, when, of course, they would have no such role. The effect of the amendment would be a patchwork quilt of different boundaries and different responsibilities. I argue that that is a recipe for total and unmitigated confusion.
However, the hon. Gentleman did state concerns that have been expressed to him by some of his constituents who are suburban taxi drivers, to the effect that they might be adversely affected by changes to the Metropolitan police district which they perceive as being likely to cause a reduction in their livelihoods. As I said in Committee, and as I now repeat in the House, those concerns are unfounded.


Let us take the example of a taxi driver who currently plies for hire in Epsom. From 1 April 2000, when the MPD boundary is scheduled to change, the taxi driver in question may apply to Epsom and Ewell district council, which the Bill will make a single taxi-licensing area, for a licence to ply for hire in that district; or that individual may choose to ply for hire in Greater London, thus carrying on with his or her current licence issued by the Public Carriage Office. That licence will remain valid, giving the right to ply for hire in all or part of Greater London, depending on whether it is an all-London licence, as most are, or a licence for one of the suburban sectors.
Moreover, following consultation with the London Taxi Board, and the Metropolitan police service, the Public Carriage Office has revised suburban taxi sectors. That revision is designed not only to align the sectors more closely with borough boundaries, but to allow drivers a wider area than that which would have been available to them once their current area had contracted. The arrangements are outlined in PCO notice 5/99, dated 31 March 1999. 1 will arrange for a copy of the notice to be placed in the Library and furnish a copy to all members of the Standing Committee. In respect of the taxi and minicab licensing responsibilities of the eight district councils moving outside the MPD, in September 1998 representatives from each council attended a PCO-organised seminar that addressed the MPD changes. Most recently, my Department has written to each of those district councils in some detail about the transitional arrangements.
8.30 pm
The point to stress in conclusion is that all existing licences granted by the PCO remain valid. If drivers want to apply separately for a licence from a fringe district, they are free to do so. I hope that the House, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and his constituents will take reassurance from that, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Davey: I am rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. Her assertion that the cab drivers in my constituency will not be affected and that their livelihoods will be protected by the sectoral review she describes is not borne out by my conversations with them. They are convinced that they will be hit in the pocket by the boundary changes. They are well aware of the sectoral review inside the GLA, but they are convinced that they will lose some of the rich pickings to which they currently have access. The Minister mentioned Epsom, but in Standing Committee I explained that cab drivers are concerned about the business that they will lose there. Their options are either to stay there and be regulated by Epsom and Ewell district council, or to go to Wimbledon and compete with the many other drivers who currently ply the cab rank outside Wimbledon station. The cab drivers are not convinced that they will not be severely hit by the Government's policy.
The Minister appears to suggest that our policy will be difficult to implement, because it will create a patchwork throughout the capital and its bordering districts. However, there is already a patchwork, because we currently have a rather bizarre historical arrangement under which there are several areas just outside the London boroughs where cab drivers are able to ply. Therefore, in practical terms, it makes no difference keeping those boundaries.
The Minister also suggests that the amendment would cause confusion to the police, but the contrary is true: the police in suburban London see no problems with administering what the Minister calls notional boundaries. I should point out that there appear to me to be notional boundaries already, and that the only question is how one organises the jurisdictions to enforce the regulations.
I am not convinced by the Minister's response, and I intend to go back to my constituents and tell them that I voiced their concerns in Standing Committee and on Report, and that we proposed alternatives to the Government's arrangements, but that the Government have not seen fit to accept our proposals. My constituents will be extremely disappointed, if not angry. I am sure that their retort will be to encourage me to ask my noble Friends in another place to pursue the matter. I hope that, in the meantime, Ministers will talk to some of their hon. Friends who have some knowledge of the cab business—no doubt some still have friends in the cab trade who will be well aware of the impact of the changes.
Let me take the Minister up on one point: she is pleased that my views are in line with the Government's policy of establishing a Metropolitan police authority and democratising London's police force. Liberal Democrats have argued for such policies for many years and we are glad that the Labour party has at last come round to our views. However, rather than continuing to stand here making party political points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

SMOKING IN LONDON TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

'(1) A person shall not smoke or carry lighted tobacco in a taxi or private hire vehicle where passengers are by means of a prescribed notice informed that smoking is prohibited.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "prescribed notice" means a notice or marking of such type and displayed in or on a taxi or private hire vehicle in such manner as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

(3) A passenger who contravenes subsection (1) may be required by the driver to leave a taxi or private hire vehicle and, where the passenger refuses to comply with that requirement, may be removed by the driver or, on the request of the driver, by a constable.

(4) A person who—

(a) contravenes subsection (1),
(b) refuses to comply with a requirement made in accordance with subsection (3), or
(c) resists lawful removal in accordance with that subsection,
is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level .3 on the standard scale.

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment requiring certain hirings to be accepted, it shall be lawful for the driver of a taxi or private hire vehicle bearing a prescribed notice to refuse to carry a passenger who is smoking or carrying lighted tobacco.

(6) In this section—

"private hire vehicle" means a vehicle licensed under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998; and

"taxi" means a hackney carriage licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.'—[Mr. Brake.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—

Smoking in London taxis—
'(1) A person shall not smoke or carry lighted tobacco in a taxi where passengers are by means of a prescribed notice informed that smoking is prohibited.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "prescribed notice" means a notice or marking of such type and displayed in or on a taxi in such manner as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(3) A passenger who contravenes subsection (1) may be required by the driver to leave a taxi and, where the passenger refuses to comply with that requirement, may be removed by the driver or, on the request of the driver, by a constable.
(4) A person who—

(a) contravenes subsection (1),
(b) refuses to comply with a requirement made in accordance with subsection (3), or
(c) resists lawful removal in accordance with that subsection,

is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment requiring certain hirings to be accepted, it shall be lawful for the driver of a taxi bearing a prescribed notice to refuse to carry a passenger who is smoking or carrying lighted tobacco.

(6) In this section "taxi" means a hackney carriage licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.'.

Mr. Brake: Hon. Members will no doubt ask, "Why is this amendment required?"

Mr. Bercow: It is a new clause.

Mr. Brake: Hon. Members will no doubt ask, "Why is this new clause required?" The answer is that although cab drivers can choose to designate their cabs smoking or non-smoking vehicles, they have difficulty in enforcing the no smoking rule at present. Passengers are well aware that enforcement is impossible, and occasionally point that out to cab drivers who ask them not to smoke. I have met the Minister and I thank her for finding the time to discuss this important subject. I welcome the fact that she has restated her support, in principle, for a ban on smoking in cabs that are designated non-smoking vehicles by their drivers.
The timing of this debate could not be more appropriate, as I understand that the Secretary of State for Health spoke today about the importance of banning tobacco advertising. However, the right hon. Gentleman could be sending mixed messages, as he recently presented the rugby league Silk Cut trophy at Wembley.
This new clause is about health and individual rights. It is about the health of taxi drivers and that of their non-smoking passengers. Before Opposition Members leap to their feet and question whether there are health implications for the non-smoking passenger who travels in a cab recently vacated by a smoking passenger, I cite the increased stress levels of that non-smoking passenger, if nothing else.
It is also a question of individual rights. Taxi drivers operate—

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman just said that a non-smoking passenger would suffer increased levels of

stress as a result of travelling in a cab in which the previous incumbent had been smoking. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Brake: I will explain; it is very simple. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a smoker and is not familiar with the anxiety or the stress that non-smokers experience when we encounter smokers from all walks of life.
It is a question of individual rights. Taxi drivers, who, in effect, operate out of their office, have the right to choose whether they want someone entering that office to smoke. The taxi driver should be able to choose and to take that decision. All hon. Members would agree that taxis should form part of the public transport system. Passengers on buses, trains and the tube are not allowed to smoke, so it seems entirely logical that the same rule should apply to cabs—which are part of the integrated transport system—if drivers choose to designate them no smoking vehicles. If the passenger needs a fix, he or she can always wait for another cab that is clearly designated a smoking cab.
This new clause is supported by several organisations, and I shall refer briefly to a couple of letters from them. One letter is from Irving Yass of London First, who says that he is very sorry that the
proposed amendment to the GLA Bill to allow taxi drivers to designate their cabs as 'non-smoking' has failed
at that time
to gain endorsement from Ministers during the Committee Stage.
The British Incoming Tour Operators Association writes:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the opportunity that exists to introduce an amendment that would enable taxi drivers to designate their taxis as non-smoking if they so wish.
Unfortunately, that opportunity does not seem to exist in reality, but BITOA supports that in principle.
The National Asthma Campaign is
pleased to confirm that the … Campaign is happy to officially support your proposed amendment to the Greater London Authority Bill
which would allow cab drivers to designate their cabs non-smoking cabs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend mentioned the National Asthma Campaign. I have had reports that some people who suffer from severe asthma open the door to get into a cab, realise that it has been filled with smoke by the passenger who has just left and decide not to take that cab. They may not subsequently get a cab for up to 25 minutes. Their use of public transport is inhibited and the cab driver loses the fare. The whole thing is to the disadvantage of many passengers and of drivers.

Mr. Brake: I agree entirely with the points that my hon. Friend has made, which are confirmed in the letter from the National Asthma Campaign, which talks about tobacco smoke being a trigger—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Clive Efford: rose—

Mr. Brake: I give way to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford).

Mr. Efford: Can you confirm to the House whether you are actually planning to ban smoking—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should use the third person form of address.

Mr. Efford: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman planning to ban smoking entirely from the back of taxis, or is he planning to allow the taxi driver the opportunity to choose whether someone smokes in the back of his taxi?

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which enables me to clarify that, as I hoped I had made clear, we are talking about allowing cab drivers to designate their cab a non-smoking cab if that is what they want to do. Equally, if they decide that they want their cab to be a smoking cab, it is entirely down to them. That is the purpose of our new clause.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter from the other direction? Does he consider that, if there is not a prescribed notice in the cab and the driver is smoking, the passenger should be permitted to ask the driver to stop smoking?

Mr. Brake: That is an interesting point. I think the important principle is that the cab driver, who is running a business, should be able to choose whether his cab is a non-smoking or a smoking cab.

Mr. Bercow: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Brake: I must continue.

Mr. Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, will he say what the answer is to the question that I asked him? If the driver is smoking, can the passenger ask him to stop smoking? It is a perfectly straightforward question. Yes or no will do as an answer.

Mr. Brake: I hope that the passengers would choose a non-smoking cab if they wanted a no-smoking environment, and I hope that cab drivers would respect that and would choose not to smoke.

Ms Glenda Jackson: We must help the hon. Gentleman in his quandary. I understand that, at present, a cab passenger may insist that a driver extinguishes a cigarette. The cab driver has no such power to require a passenger to extinguish a cigarette.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for her intervention, which I hope has clarified the matter.
I expect the Minister—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brake: I shall give way a final time.

Mr. Hughes: I am not trying to deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but responding to the interventions by the professional over there—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford)—and the Minister. The issue, as my hon. Friend says, and as the new clause shows, is that there should be freedom to make the choice backed up by a sanction. At the moment, the cab driver may ask a

passenger not to smoke, but if the latter does not comply with that request, there is no sanction to ensure that he or she does so.

Mr. Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brake: I hope that that has cleared up the point. I will now push my—

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brake: I will not give way.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brake: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should respect the customs of the House.

Mr. Brake: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must draw my remarks to a conclusion. I expect the Minister to outline clearly how and when she intends to address this critical issue. I understand the legislative difficulties involved, but it is of such importance that we require a strong statement from the Minister tonight.

Mr. Ottaway: I start by paying tribute to all taxi drivers, smoking and non-smoking, in the front and in the back. We are all deeply indebted to London cabbies.
Those who have travelled abroad and experienced cabs overseas will know what I mean when I say that we have the best cab service in the world. In my personal experience, a visitor to York is lucky to find a cab driver who not only knows where one wants to go, but speaks English. [HON. MEMBERS: "New York."] Did I say York? I meant New York, United States of America.
Nevertheless, I have reservations about the proposal. Smoking is a perfectly lawful occupation. In my judgment, it should be banned only if it affects others. May I tell my colleagues, in case they are hanging on my every word, that in the view of the Conservative party, this is a matter of conscience and they have a free vote. They may pick either side of this rather difficult argument, as was the position in Committee.
The matter is one for the individual to decide. I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that there is a passive smoking risk. If one is sitting next to someone on the underground and smoke is wafting past—[Interruption.] Very well, if one is sitting in a public place and smoke is wafting past, and one is inhaling it, there is a risk. [Interruption.] The Liberals are jeering in a rather anoraky way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I give way first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I was trying to work out how long it must be since the hon. Gentleman was last on the underground for him to have had that experience.
On a more serious point, he must surely accept that there is a significant passive smoking risk. If one gets into a cab, which might be the only cab that comes for 20 minutes, and it is full of the smoke left by the last passenger, one has no choice but to be affected by it, and it cannot do one any good. The driver must have the right to say that he does not want that in his cab.

Mr. Ottaway: I have been on the underground several times in the past few weeks, and I have seen the appalling mess that the Government are getting into, but perhaps that is for tomorrow's debate. Not being a smoker, I have not had to observe whether smoking was permitted or not. It does not worry me very much whether someone is smoking. People who have given up tend to be more zealous about these matters.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says that there is a risk from passive smoking. I say that there is no evidence to that effect. If one gets into a cab where someone has been smoking, there is no smoke billowing around. One has simply to open the windows. It is not a big deal.
The hon. Gentleman may be concerned about unpleasant smells. Will he ban fish and chips, or anything else that might create a smell, from the back of cabs? The Liberal Democrats are being far too sensitive.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the smog generated by the speech of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) greatly exceeds anything that is likely to be generated by the smoking of a cigarette in a hansom cab? In proposing the new clause—this is a serious matter—the hon. Gentleman is intellectually confused to the extent that he still cannot give us a definitive answer about whether he believes that the owner of a taxi should have the absolute right, as the driver, to smoke in his own cab. Yea or nay—I think we should be told—[Interruption.].

Mr. Ottaway: I presume that my hon. Friend was addressing that question to me. The Minister came to the rescue of the Liberal Democrats, which is no surprise as they are coalition partners. I must confess that what the Minister said surprised me. She said that a passenger can legally oblige a taxi driver to put out his cigarette. It would be a great help if she could explain the source of that legislation.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman really need to know?

Mr. Ottaway: I do—it is an important point.

Ms Jackson: I was about to say that I was stunned that the spokesperson for the official Opposition on transport for London clearly does not know what is happening on the tube and, apparently, knows less about legislation affecting taxi drivers. I am perfectly prepared to go through the long list of relevant legislation. I will quickly run through it now to find out where that provision is

listed, but it is the case that a passenger may insist on a driver not smoking but a driver may not insist on a passenger not smoking.

Mr. Ottaway: That is helpful. Perhaps the Minister will have found the source in legislation by the end of the debate.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the distinction this? The Liberal Democrats think that the driver can eject the smoking passenger. Given the Minister's hypothesis, is it not much harder for the passenger to eject the driver?

Mr. Ottaway: We are getting into smog-filled territory, to borrow a pun from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The Liberal Democrats must also deal with odours. Are they saying that people who smell should not be allowed to stay in a taxi? Are they saying that people should not eat fish and chips in a taxi? There is no intellectual rationale for their new clauses.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes half-valid points. He must understand that we are discussing what is effectively a public transport service, although it is privately provided. Once the light is on, the prospective passenger has a right to use the cab. The question is whether the provider, like the provider of a pub or any other public place, should have the right to say that it should be smoke free. For the purposes of transport, the cab is a public place. That is the difference. The law on smoking is applied in other public places; it is not applied to fish and chips or smells, even though the hon. Gentleman might wish it to be.

Mr. Ottaway: The question is whether the back of a cab is a public place. It is the back of someone's vehicle. I do not think that it necessarily follows that the passenger is sharing the compartment with another member of the public. When one hires a cab, one hires it for oneself. One does not share it with anyone. I do not think that the Government propose to ban smoking in one's own house. It therefore does not follow that if one is on one's own in the back of a cab one should not be allowed to smoke—otherwise we are getting into the nanny state. The policy is interventionist in the worst possible way and should be avoided.

Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that as a result of what he is saying a cab driver could lose his licence because he wants the cab to be a no smoking zone? That is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position and it would infringe the liberties of the ordinary cab driver. The hon. Gentleman started his remarks by praising the cab drivers of our great city. He wants to take away their liberties, or at least restrict them to the restrictions allowed under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Ottaway: What absolute bilge. I have said nothing of the sort. All that I am asking is that the law that has prevailed for the past 100 years should be allowed to prevail for the next 100 years. The nanny-state, interventionist side of the Liberals is coming out in the worst possible way. They want to make smoking in the


back of a cab a criminal offence. They want people to be thrown out of taxis. Speaking personally, I do not agree with their proposal.

Mr. Davey: I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman, who leads for the Conservatives, will say whether he really wants cab drivers to lose their livelihood because they want to be a no smoking zone.

Mr. Ottaway: They have not lost their livelihood up to now, so why should they lose it in the future, unless we pass this ridiculous new clause?
The most sensible way for the House to proceed is to recognise that a sign asking people not to smoke should be generously respected. The Minister, who is uncharacteristically smiling, gave a pledge several months ago to introduce a new clause to ban smoking in taxis. When she was put on the spot by the Liberal Democrats in Committee, she backed off. She said that the clause as drafted would not achieve the desired result. The implication was that she would go away and have a look at it and come back to the House. As far as I am aware, she does not intend to accept the new clauses tonight, unless the reason why she is smiling is that she intends to surprise the House. I doubt it. If anyone has done a U-turn, it is the Minister. She has backed off. She made a pledge that she could not stand by and she has got herself into a bit of a jam.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I take one last opportunity to try to get the hon. Gentleman, whose philosophy on these matters I support, to understand that he is in a muddle. We are arguing that the driver should have the freedom to choose. We are not advocating the nanny state. We are not saying that drivers must choose not to allow smoking in their cab. Unless we have all misunderstood where the Conservative party has come from and is going, surely it must defend the freedom of people to choose whether to run a smoke-free business in their own vehicle.

Mr. Ottaway: That is where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that a driver should have the discretion to decide whether someone should undertake a lawful activity. That is just a plain difference of opinion. For that reason, I personally will not support the new clause.

Mr. Clive Efford: We have reached the controversial issue in the Bill. The Liberals are anxious and stressed, and the Conservatives are planning to have a vote of conscience. For me, the debate is simple and straightforward. It is about the workplace and about the worker being able to work in a smoke-free environment. It is plain and simple. If the driver chooses to work in a smoke-free environment, he or she should be able to enforce that decision. This has gone on for far too long. Drivers are operating outside the law. They have polite notices in the cab—I had one in the back of my taxi—thanking people for not smoking, but if someone chooses to smoke and the driver finds that offensive and unacceptable, he cannot enforce the notice. Drivers are forced to suffer and become passive smokers. On a wet winter evening, they are not going to open the windows, believe me.
The Government have said that they want to consult further and that this is not the relevant vehicle for this measure. We have to accept the Government's position,

but I urge them to deal with the matter urgently and without further delay. There is a great deal of concern in the trade. Drivers are currently placed outside the law; the Government must tidy up the anomaly. Other forms of public transport are free from smoking and there is no reason why taxi drivers should not be able to choose whether anyone smokes in the back of their taxi.
9 pm
It is not just a question of the taxi driver's becoming a passive smoker; it is a question of his protecting the tools of his trade. High standards are set for London taxis. Smoking can damage the fabric of the inside of a taxi, and when the time comes for the annual overhaul, the Public Carriage Office will not pass a cab whose upholstery is damaged; yet the simple fact is that it is expensive to replace it. There are other factors involving the need to maintain standards relating to cleanliness in the back of taxis. For instance, the ceilings of taxis quickly become sooty as a result of smoke fumes. One of the most unpleasant tasks that I had to perform as a London taxi driver was cleaning out the ashtrays. As a non-smoker, I found having to dispose of other people's mess extremely unpleasant.
I understand that the Transport and General Workers Union has written to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—on the understanding that amendments would not be forthcoming from the Government—seeking further meetings involving representatives of the taxi trade. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give us an undertaking in that regard because, as our debate has demonstrated, there is considerable concern about the issue. It should be dealt with, as a matter of urgency.
I have to say that I have reservations about making smoking in taxis a criminal offence, and would like to consider that further. For one thing, there is the issue of proof. If we are to introduce a law, it should be workable and enforceable. By the time a taxi driver reaches a police station in an attempt to eject a passenger who refuses to leave the taxi, if that person has just put out his cigarette, where is the proof? It will be the driver's word against the passenger's—and, if there is more than one passenger, the driver will be outvoted. We need a more moderate provision, allowing drivers to drive to the nearest police station—they know where they are—and then to seek the assistance of the police in ejecting the passenger.
If a passenger refuses to pay in such circumstances, it is up to the police to ensure that names and addresses are exchanged. That is my understanding of the regulations. It is then up to the taxi driver to institute a civil action for any inconvenience or loss of income caused. In such circumstances, small claims courts fine people heavily for messing taxi drivers around when those drivers have been pursuing their profession.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but not imposing criminal sanctions will not solve the problem. Let us suppose that the hon. Gentleman was the driver involved. He would have risked the damage to his upholstery and the smoke-filled cab. Driving to a police station three miles away in an attempt to get rid of someone who might not easily go would not get to the


bottom of the difficulty. I think that the criminal sanction is needed because without it, there is no solution if a passenger insists on lighting up in the back of a cab.

Mr. Efford: I do not accept that. I think that, again, the issue of proof applies. Moreover, neither party will want to take a detour: both parties will want to go from A to B. That, surely, is the main sanction. I do not think that we need to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut; what we need to do is tidy up a situation in which many taxi drivers find themselves placed outside the law in an attempt to work in a smoke-free environment.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be further dialogue, and that she will undertake the consultation that the Government feel is necessary before they can legislate.

Mr. John Randall: I am grateful to my Front-Bench team for allowing Conservative Members freedom of choice. It is perhaps a slightly difficult and worrying situation, but I find myself in agreement with the thrust of the Liberal Democrats' new clauses. It is not because I am a non-smoker. From time to time, I hide away in the Smoking Room in this place, but I respect the view that was eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who should, after all, know what he is talking about. The fact that the vehicle is the workplace and, in many cases, the private property of the individual cab driver should give that driver and owner the right to choose whether his environment is non-smoking, or smoking.
I have some worries. I have a great worry about the difficulty of enforcement. I worry that the people who might light up when asked not to might be coming back from the pub or somewhere such as that.

Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in relation to public transport, to a great extent, the smoking ban on the tube and buses is being enforced not actively, but because people know that they are not allowed to smoke? The vast majority of passengers observe the ban.

Mr. Randall: To some extent, I agree, although, on the tube, for example, there may be people who will smoke when alone in a carriage—when there are no other people there to tell them off, if you like, or to embarrass them. We do travel on the tube. We see people light up, particularly late at night. Despite the remonstrations of fellow passengers, they continue to do so. Normally, however, when other people are around, people do not light up. Of course, when we get to a station, there is the possibility of calling someone in.
I would be a little concerned about the situation getting somewhat out of hand and the possibility of violent attacks. However, taxi drivers themselves are asking for the measure and I am sure that they are aware of that possibility—I understand that it is the taxi and cab drivers and their professional organisations that are asking for the measure. It is long overdue.
I do not accept the view of some of my hon. Friends that the issue is freedom of choice for the passenger. As the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Eltham have said, it should be put the other way round. I am a

great believer in freedom of choice, but that must not impinge, as these things sometimes do, on other people's liberty or freedom of choice.
As I have said, the measure should be looked at and enshrined in law. Again, I have my doubts about the criminal offence side of it. I understand from what the hon. Member for Eltham said that he has already spoken to the Government and that the let-out excuse is that they will be looking at the matter further. I think that we shall continue to hear that. It would be a good thing if a marker were put down that the House respected the rights of individual drivers to choose.
I feel that, although in their hearts many Labour Members support the new clauses, they will be persuaded by their devotion to the Whips—they are without the benefit that Conservative Members have of freedom of choice on the matter—to vote against them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I suggest an argument that the hon. Gentleman, with me, might make to Labour Members? In the new clauses, Liberal Democrat Members are attempting to persuade the House to support a policy that was, until recently, the Government's very own policy. Just recently, for some inexplicable reason, the Government backed away from that policy. I hope that that will persuade Labour Members to be true to old Labour policy, rather than the Government's new-found, rather inadequate substitute.

Mr. Randall: I should not be greatly surprised to learn that Labour Members have had damascene conversions or changed their minds on specific issues. However, I should not hold out too much hope to the hon. Gentleman of Labour Members trooping through the Lobby to support the new clause.
As I said—bearing in mind the views of many of my hon. Friends on the issue—I find it somewhat worrying to be supporting the new clauses. However, I should also assure the House that I support them not because I am the only Conservative Member with a beard, but because they have great merit.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Although I am not an expert on the matter or a parliamentary draftsman, and the new clauses may not fit into the Bill, I, too, have some sympathy for the objectives that the new clauses seek to accomplish.
I have a letter that was sent to the British Heart Foundation by the London Taxi Board, which represents the owners and drivers of London taxi cabs. Moreover Transport and General Workers Union—which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) mentioned in his brief speech—members comprise one of the board's sections.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will know, the London Taxi Board has been campaigning for the Bill to be amended so that taxi drivers will be able to designate their cabs as non-smoking. The board believes that such an ability
would allow drivers to work within a smoke-free environment and passengers to travel in a smoke-free cab should they so wish.
The board is also right to say that such an ability would fit in with the Government's White Paper on smoking, which was published in December 1998.


The Health and Safety Executive is working on a code of practice on smoking in the workplace, which should provide even further direction on how we should address the issue.
Some of the comments and laughter that greeted the speech of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) in moving the new clause were inappropriate, as hon. Members should be a bit more serious about the issue of people in enclosed work spaces having to be exposed to smoke. It is not true that passive smoking is not harmful, because good scientific evidence shows that it is. It may not be much of a problem for people like me to get into a cab that has recently been filled with smoke, but, if I were asthmatic, it might be a different kettle of fish. We should appreciate that such a smoky environment can quite easily trigger asthma attacks for those who are vulnerable to them.
The letter also deals with the board's proposal that cabs should be clearly marked as either smoking or non-smoking, so that customers might be provided with a choice. I do not think that such a provision would suggest the action of a nanny state, because we should have a choice in the matter. Many national pub chains now offer the choice of going to a public house and drinking in a smoke-free area, and restaurants in most major towns not only offer smoke-free areas, but may be entirely smoke free. As an individual, I choose to use those restaurants, rather than ones that allow smoking anywhere on the premises. Everyone agrees that there is an anomaly in current smoking policies, and that anomaly should be cleared up.
The board wrote to the British Heart Foundation seeking support for the consultation described by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. May I ask her what stage that consultation has reached, and what mechanism a cabbie will be able to use to ensure that his or her workplace—the cab that he or she owns—is smoke free? Does provision of such a mechanism require primary legislation, or could it be dealt with by other means? I thought that the Bill dealt more with constitutional issues, and not with issues that have been dealt with in other parts of the public sector without primary legislation. There are many forms of public transport on which smoking is banned or severely restricted.

Dr. Rudi Vis: We should not overlook the fact that when someone hails a cab and the driver accepts them, it is no longer public transport; it is private transport and the passenger owns it for the trip. The same applies to hotels. We are told that taxis should be compared with public transport or other public places such as pubs, but that is not the essence of the situation with cabs. That does not mean that I am not sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Barron: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with that. I understand that the transport White Paper suggests that cabs are public transport.
I would like a sign on the front of a cab, not necessarily lit up, saying that it is a smoke-free cab. I would hail those cabs rather than ones that allow smoking.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: It comes as no surprise that the Government might support the dictatorial nature of the new clause. The fact that it was moved by

the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) merely proves that there is nothing liberal about the Liberal Democrats.
Surely hon. Members understand that such a matter should be decided by the new Greater London Authority, not by this House. What is the point of anyone in London voting for the Greater London Authority if it cannot even decide on how smoking bans should be enforced in cabs?
It is appropriate that different legislation should apply on such an issue in different parts of the country. Hon. Members may have read over the weekend, as I did, about an American tycoon who flew into this country on Concorde smoking a cigar, against the aircraft's regulations. Despite all the authority of British Airways, he could not be persuaded to put out his cigar. He appears to have breached some element of this country's legal code. British Airways has attempted to bring him to justice, but cannot lay a finger on him because he moves around the world so fast that he cannot be found to have the warrant served on him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's argument about leaving the issue to the Greater London Authority is superficially appealing, but I believe—I stand to be corrected—that it would not have the power to cover such matters without promoting a private Bill to introduce a new criminal sanction. If it had the authority to deal with the matter, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but as it has not, we have to make provision in primary legislation.

Mr. St. Aubyn: A new clause should be inserted in the Bill to give the authority the power.
Many tourists visit London. It is patently absurd to suppose that the police in London would be able to catch up with those who breached the clause. There is not sufficient police time available, nor should there be. A law that could not be enforced against many of the people who use London cabs, but would be enforced against others who happened to be here all the time would be considered most unjust by many people. Regardless of whether we agree with the thinking behind the clause or sympathise with the plight of the poor London cabbie, we should reject the clause.
The London cab enjoys several privileges. If we park our car in the wrong place on a rank reserved for taxis, we are fined heavily. Taxi drivers who go to that rank agree to accept any customer who comes along. The clause would breach that important principle, elevating the situation of cab drivers beyond what they deserve.
I run a joinery business—in a non-executive capacity, these days. Sometimes in that business, people have to put up with dust and other problems. That is not a satisfying part of the job, but it is a part of the job. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) may not enjoy using a vacuum cleaner on the ash in the back of his cab, but that is tough, I am afraid. With that goes the pleasure of serving millions of Londoners, for which all of us are grateful to him. We hope that he continues to do so without the intrusive nature of this proposal.

Ms Glenda Jackson: If the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) runs a joinery business and provides his


employees with no protective clothing, he would be well advised to ask the Health and Safety Executive to examine his business.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to attack a Member of this House and not to accept an immediate intervention from that Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. A point of debate was at issue, which seemed to lie outside the terms of the new clause.

Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a very important issue, although one would not have known it if one had listened exclusively to the speech by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Guildford. The speeches by my hon. Friends the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), and by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), were serious in their intent.
The Government support the principle of designating taxes as non-smoking vehicles. There has been no U-turn. On 29 July last year, in reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I said that the Government intended, when parliamentary time permitted
to propose a change in the law to enable licensed taxi drivers to designate their vehicles as 'non-smoking cabs'".—[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 241.]
The Government stand by that commitment. We also stand by what I said in Committee; that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such a measure.
The widest-possible consultation must be carried out before we could consider proposing such legislation. I am pleased to announce—I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will be pleased—that the Government will be consulting on the issue. There is a clear need for consultation.
As we have heard from the speeches this evening, there are problems in terms of defining the evidence that will be needed. First, there is the taxi driver's legal obligation to take a hiring. A change to allow a non-smoking provision will mean that, for the first time, a taxi driver will be able to choose for whom he stops. That carries the risk of discrimination for reasons other than smoking.
There are also the practical problems of a non-smoking measure. How would a taxi driver deal with a passenger who lit up during a journey? Would the driver or a constable be able to evict the passenger? What if a passenger was evicted late at night, and was female or disabled and could not get home? Those are serious safety issues, which need to be looked at.
Fares would be a problem. Would the passenger pay up to the point when they were thrown out, or when they were taken to the nearest police station? How would the driver obtain the fare, if the passenger did not want to pay?
I have touched on the question of evidence. How could it be proved that a passenger had lit up inside a cab? A taxi is not like a bus or a train. If a driver headed for a police station, presumably, the passenger's first move would be to throw the cigarette out of the window.
Who should be responsible for designating a taxi as a non-smoking cab? Would it be the proprietor or, if they are not the same—as they are not in many cases—the driver? In the case of several drivers using one taxi in shifts, should it be possible to designate and de-designate the cab according to the driver?
Clearly, consultation will need to be wide. Obviously, the taxi trade, the local authorities, the licensing authorities, the police and judiciary and organisations concerned with safety, such as the Suzy Lamplugh trust, will all need to be consulted, and the results will have to be carefully considered.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No, I am very short of time.
I entirely understand and share the sympathy that has been expressed this evening by hon. Members.
It would be improper to introduce the provisions in this Bill, at this stage. The mayor would of course have the power to introduce private legislation for London, but we believe that a national measure would be right. The significance and complexity of the measure make thorough consultation essential, and I am glad to undertake that such consultation will be conducted.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister said last July that the Government would legislate when legislative time was available, and we now have a Bill through which we could legislate, so why does she give us all these reasons why we cannot do so? What is the latest date by which the Government will legislate?

Ms Jackson: The Bill is specifically for London, and I have already said that the provisions suggested in the new clause should be consulted on nationally. We estimate that it will take three to four weeks to draft the consultation document. The guidelines on good government mean that the consultation period should be a minimum of eight weeks. I imagine that there will be a massive response, and we will clearly need to evaluate that. All that takes us about three months along the line. No one is in a position to prejudge what will be in the Queen's Speech, but I have given a categoric assurance that both I and the Government stand by previous statements and that there will be consultation shortly.
The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) share our view that cab drivers or owners should be able to designate their cabs as smoking or non-smoking, so people could still open the cab door and find smoky air inside. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the concerns of the National Asthma Association, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley made the same point in relation to people with heart conditions. The new clause could not possibly cover the difficulties to which they drew attention, as the cab driver or owner would still have the choice.


I have touched on many of the difficulties that we perceive in any attempt to rush through such important legislation. I have given a clear commitment that the Government will legislate and that we will hold consultations on this vital issue as soon as possible. I therefore trust that the motion will be withdrawn.

Mr. Brake: I am pleased that the subject has generated such interest. I welcome the support of hon. Members of all parties, and I hope that it does their promotion prospects no harm. I have heard the Minister restating her concerns about drafting the legislation, but I consider the issue to be so important that, notwithstanding her genuine assurances that it will be tackled, I want to press the motion to a vote.

Mr. Ottaway: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 293.

Division No. 164]
[9.29 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Ballard, Jackie
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beth, Rt Hon A J
Randall, John


Brake, Tom
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Brand, Dr Peter
Sanders, Adrian


Burnett, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Tyler, Paul


(NE Fife)
Willis, Phil


Feam, Ronnie



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Edward Davey and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Dr. Jenny Tonge.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Austin, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barnes, Harry
Casale, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
(Chipping Barnet)


Bell, Martin (Talton)
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Bennett, Andrew F
(Rushcliffe)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Best, Harold
Clwyd, Ann


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blackman, Liz
Cohen, Harry


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Borrow, David
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Ms Jean


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cousins, Jim





Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson Alan(Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Dalyell, Tam
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Helen(Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ms Jenny


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne(Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan(Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kindey, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Andy(Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King Ms Oona(Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman,Dr Stephen


Etherington, Bill
Lawrence,Ms Jackie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Chistopher


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry(Worsley)


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Galloway, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCartney, RtHon Ian


Gerrard, Neil
(Markerfied)


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Gray, James
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John 
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hood, Jimmy
Mountford, Kali


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
Organ, Mrs Diana






Ottaway, Richard
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pearson, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Perham, Ms Linda
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickthall, Colin
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
(Dewsbury)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ms Dari(Stockton S)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon John D(Strangford)


Prosser, Gwyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Trickett, Jon


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Truswell, Paul


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


(Hamilton S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Covtry NW)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)


Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)
Vaz, Keith


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


St Aubyn, Nick
Watts, David


Salter, Martin
White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Skinner, Dennis
(Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wise, Audrey


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Noes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Greg Pope and


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 226

THE LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY STRATEGY

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 123, line 43, leave out ("the' and insert
'(referred to in this section and section 7B as "the'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 130 to 134.
Government new clause 35—Secretary of State's functions in relation to the strategy.

Mr. Raynsford: New clause 35 adds a new section to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to the mayor on matters to be covered and issues to be taken into account in the economic development strategy that will be developed on behalf of the mayor by the London development agency. The mayor will have to have regard to the guidance, but there will not be a power, as with

other RDAs, to give guidance on the strategy to be adopted in relation to any matter. That reflects the unique status of the mayor, who will have oversight of the development agency in London.
There is also provision for the Secretary of State to issue a direction requiring the mayor to alter the strategy if it is inconsistent with national policies or likely to be detrimental to any area outside London. The measures mirror the planning provisions and those for other mayoral strategies.
Amendment No. 129 is necessary as a consequence of new clause 35 adding another section to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I do not want to be insistent, but, in Committee, we debated long and hard whether guidance or a direction should he given. While new clause 35 says:
The Secretary of State may give guidance
and
The Mayor is to have regard to any guidance",
is not its gist that the Secretary of State may direct the mayor to do what he wants? While I understand the need for the mayor to have a strategy consistent with national policy, is this not the shadow rather than the substance of devolution to the mayor and people of London?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There must be an overarching national concern when several different regions pursue economic development strategies that may result in their coming into conflict with each other. In the national interest, the Secretary of State must take an overview. That is sensible. In London, we have rightly made the development agency answerable to the mayor. There is therefore proper democratic accountability in the region. The mayor can give guidance to the LDA on how to conduct its business. The only safeguard is to ensure that, where there is a possible conflict with national policy, or where there is action that would be detrimental to another part of the country, the Secretary of State will have an intervention power. That is the right and proper balance.
9.45 pm
I accept entirely that some elements in the House—one usually thinks of those sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches in that connection—would allow anarchy and would allow regions to pursue their own interest regardless of the interest of other regions. That would not be responsible or serious and we are not proposing it. However, we are giving a considerable amount of devolved power to the mayor and to the London development agency to develop a regional development strategy that is appropriate to London's needs, but focuses on the issues that will be really important in London—the promotion of tourism and the development of the financial services industries and of other service industries that will be of unique importance in the London area. The development agency, working with the mayor, will pursue those issues.
Amendments Nos. 130 to 134 are technical amendments to simplify and clarify the text of the Bill. I commend new clause 35 and amendments Nos. 129 to 134 to the House.

Mr. Ottaway: I suspect that new clause 35 is another measure that is being introduced in case the hon. Member


for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) becomes mayor of London. When the Bill left Standing Committee after a great deal of debate, the original plan was that the Secretary of State would be able to correct inconsistencies. However, the new clause is a quite distinct firming up of the legislation. One wonders why it was not introduced in Standing Committee, because there is nothing novel or unique about it. Basically, the Secretary of State will now decide what the policy is; no other interpretation can be put on the measure. The Secretary of State can give guidance, and, if the mayor wanders off, he will receive a great deal more guidance until he comes back into line. In other words, the Government know best and, in truth, this is another example of the nanny state.
However, a far more serious aspect of the measure is the fact that the London development agency will have a fairly influential effect on the economy of London. In the judgment of Conservative Members, that should be a matter for the mayor. The Minister will be aware that we do not agree in principle with the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998; we believe that assistance should be focused on specific areas, rather than on regions. Nevertheless, we shall have to learn to live with the Act. The mayor can use the LDA as a vehicle for his economic policy—or he could until the new clause came along. Now, the Secretary of State will decide what the policy is. That is fine; it is probably what the Government intend. However, what is the point of having the authority in the first place, if this sort of rearguard action is going to take place in the latter stages of the introduction of the legislation?
I think that the measure is a sign that the Government are losing their nerve slightly over the whole issue. They started out by proclaiming loudly that the mayor would lead a brave new world, but now we find that it is not the mayor but the Secretary of State who will lead that brave new world.

Mr. Wilkinson: I endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). As he suggested, the measure is, in essence, a Brent, East mayoralty contingency clause, but it is equally a Conservative mayoralty contingency clause. It is likely that the requirement for the policies of the London development agency to be consistent with national policies would not be met if a Greater London Authority were led by a Conservative mayor—the aspiration of Conservative Members. A Conservative mayor would follow policies that were quite different from those of a socialist Government in Whitehall.

Mr. Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that, for an indefinite time in the future, there will always be a Labour Government? Is the Conservative party now in so bad a state that he feels that there is no possibility that a Conservative Government will ever be elected again?

Mr. Wilkinson: As so often happens, the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I was hypothesising the strong likelihood that there would be a Conservative mayoralty and saying that a Conservative-led Greater London Authority would pursue policies of stimulating enterprise and getting bureaucracy and interference off the back of commerce and industry in the capital, to such an extent that the capital would
become an example of free enterprise in action. A socialist Administration would probably not be too delighted about that, especially as such a capital city would be a magnet for further private-sector investment of a sort that would demonstrate the great disparity between the performance of other regions of the country, which have inherent disadvantages compared with the capital, and what was being engendered in industry and commerce in London.
The Government are not, as has usually been the case in respect of this Bill, setting up the Secretary of State as a back-seat driver; instead, the Secretary of State would be more or less in the boardroom of the development agency for London. Not only is the Secretary of State to give routine guidance on strategy, but he will be able to pray in aid allegations of the development agency's strategy being "inconsistent with national policies" or
having … a detrimental effect on any area outside Greater London".
Given that there is bound to be a distinction and diversity of performance, objectives and policy between the capital and elsewhere in the country, the Secretary of State is being given carte blanche to issue directions to the development agency.
In my judgment, the work of the development agency will not be primarily to encourage the financial services sector, which is located predominantly, albeit by no means exclusively, in the City of London and which has always had the full impetus of the City of London corporation behind it—indeed, that is one of the main raisons d'être of the corporation. Nor will it be to encourage tourism, which also has its own bodies, such as the London tourist board, to attract tourists to the capital. Indeed, the complaint has always been that the influx of tourists to London is disproportionate, that other regions have been disadvantaged and that income from tourism has been distributed unequally between London and the provinces. Therefore, we can discount the two examples offered by the Minister.
It is much more likely that, under vigorous Conservative leadership, the development agency will work to restore manufacturing to full health in the capital. Because so many advantages have been given to other areas, through the Welsh Development Agency and its Scottish equivalent and all sorts of regional policies which have favoured manufacturing industry in the provinces, manufacturing industry in London has had a difficult time. In certain sectors, it has done well, but with imaginative policies from a development agency, London's manufacturing sector could do even better.
The new clause is a recipe for back-seat driving of the worst sort and it has little to commend it. It is an illustration of the fact that the Labour Government do not trust the GLA or the LDA to get on with the job, but believe that they should have the right to meddle and interfere ad infinitum.

Mr. Edward Davey: We have debated this issue several times in Committee, but it is appropriate for me once again to make the Liberal Democrats' views clear, because the issue reveals the fundamental difference between the Government and us.
The Minister said earlier that the Liberal Democrats' approach to the Bill is anarchic, but nothing could be further from the truth: our approach is democratic. Not only do we believe in devolution, but we understand how
it works and we believe that if devolution is to take place, it should be done properly and fully. The Government are trying to reduce the level of democracy, perhaps for the reason offered by other hon. Members—the Brent, East question—but more probably because they fail to understand people's desire to take control of their own lives. In his opening remarks, the Minister suggested that the mayor of London would have greater power than would be afforded to other regions. New clause 35, subsection 7B(1) states:
The Secretary of State may give guidance to the Mayor about the exercise of his functions".
According to the Minister, the Secretary of State can intervene and force the mayor to review his strategy only in respect of national policies. However, subsection 7B(7) contains the definition of "national policies", which it says are:
any policies of Her Majesty's government which are available in a written form and which—

(a) have been laid or announced before, or otherwise presented to, either House of Parliament, or
(b) have been published by a Minister of the Crown."

In other words, the Secretary of State can decide what constitutes a national policy and use that as an excuse to intervene.
The Government are trying to hide their embarrassment about their centralist tendencies under a fig leaf. However, as new clause 35 demonstrates, the tentacles of the leviathan state are all over the so-called new, devolved assembly. The devolution that the Government propose in this Bill is, in many ways, a charade. As I said in Committee, this Bill both establishes Government for London and abolishes it. It is a great shame that the Government feel so nervous about devolution that, even at this late stage, they must give the Secretary of State yet another power. The Liberal Democrats oppose that move.

Mr. Raynsford: I am enjoying the image of myself as a tentacled leviathan who is trying to swallow all local and regional initiative in London using the overriding centralist powers that are our obsession. The Liberal Democrats have clearly not yet woken up to the fact that we are recreating a democratic citywide authority for London, which was abolished 13 years ago by the former Conservative Government. We pledged that we would return to London the right to have its own democratic citywide authority, and we are delivering on that promise.
I assure the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who led for the Opposition, that there is an obvious case for having a London development agency. He doubted the need for such a body, but it will be the mayor's economic development arm. It will play a key role in regeneration strategies, in advising on the distribution of the single regeneration budget and encouraging partnership to promote other regeneration initiatives. That is a hugely important role in a city divided by great wealth and great poverty. We need to galvanise and bring together all available agencies and resources to have the most positive and powerful impact on the London economy and on the regeneration of its disadvantaged areas.
That is the role that the development agency will have. It will work to the mayor, unlike regional development agencies elsewhere that will report directly to Ministers.
There will be local accountability within London, but it is only sensible that it should take place within a national framework. The Secretary of State will give guidance to the mayor in the same way as he will direct the regional development agencies in other areas. That is entirely compatible with devolution in London within a national framework.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) believes that this is about fettering the powers of a future Conservative mayor. That is a fantasy, as is his scenario about a Conservative mayor miraculously restoring London's manufacturing. I put it to him in the nicest possible way that, if he had come to London during the 18 years of Conservative Government, he would have seen the immense damage that was being done to manufacturing industry and the collapse and decline of that industry in so many parts of London that resulted from the policies pursued by the Government whom he supported. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are about creating a proper framework for economic development in London that will respect the need for manufacturing and other service industries and will do the best for London.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) claimed that the Liberal Democrats are not anarchic. He then rather spoilt the effect by expressing astonishment that national policies are the same things as the policies of the Government. That could come only from a party of absolutely implacable anarchists who have no understanding of the process of government. Government does not exist to issue texts for discussion at Liberal discussion groups; government is here to govern.

10 pm

Mr. Davey: I was taking issue not with the need for London's policies to be consistent with national policies but with the way in which national policies are defined in the Bill. The Government could have chosen to define national policies as policies that apply throughout the country, but they chose not to do so. They chose to define national policies as those that were laid down by the Government, and those policies might apply only to London.

Mr. Raynsford: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the Government govern the whole country, and Government policies therefore apply to the whole country, unless they are defined as applying only to one area. In new clause 35, we are proposing a provision by which the Secretary of State will be able to give guidance, but instead of directing the development of the London development agency strategy—which would be a matter for the mayor—would have the power of intervention on two grounds. Those two grounds are consistent throughout the Bill, because we recognise the need—which I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats do not recognise—for the devolved government in London to work within a national framework, respecting the fact that London remains part of the United Kingdom and respecting the fact that its policies should not have an adverse impact on other parts of the United Kingdom.
Those are sound principles, which anyone who is experienced in the process of government would recognise are fundamental to successful devolution. Those are the principles that underpin our policies. Those are the principles that underpin new clause 35.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 130, in page 124, line 19, leave out 'in relation' and insert

', in particular, with respect' .—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Schedule 20

FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ACT 1998

Amendments made: No. 131, in page 253, line 22, at beginning insert 'In'.

No. 132, in page 253, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'after' in line 25.

No. 133, in page 254, leave out line 25.

No. 134, in page 254, line 28, leave out 'subsection

(6) above' and insert 'this section'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

New Clause 35

SECRETARY OF STATE'S FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE STRATEGY

'. After section 7A of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 there shall be inserted—

"Secretary of State's functions in relation to the London Development Agency strategy

7B.—(1) The Secretary of State may give guidance to the Mayor about the exercise of his functions in relation to the London Development Agency strategy with respect to—

(a) the matters to be covered by that strategy or that strategy as revised, and
(b) the issues to be taken into account in preparing or revising that strategy.

(2) Section 7(3) applies in relation to the issues mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as it applies in relation to the issues mentioned in section 7(2)(b).

(3) The Mayor is to have regard to any guidance given under subsection (1).

(4) Where the Secretary of State considers—

(a) that the London Development Agency strategy (or any part of it) is inconsistent with national policies, or
(b) that the London Development Agency strategy or its implementation is having, or is likely to have, a detrimental effect on any area outside Greater London,

he may direct the Mayor to make such revisions of the strategy as may be specified in the direction in order to remove the inconsistency or, as the case may be, the detrimental effect or likely detrimental effect.

(5) Where the Secretary of State gives the Mayor a direction under subsection (4), the Mayor shall revise the London Development Agency strategy in accordance with the direction.

(6) Where the Mayor revises the London Development Agency strategy in accordance with subsection (5), section 7A(8) and section 34 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (consultation about strategies) shall not apply.

(7) For the purposes of this section "national policies" are any policies of Her Majesty's government which are available in a written form and which—

(a) have been laid or announced before, or otherwise presented to, either House of Parliament, or
(b) have been published by a Minister of the Crown.'".—[Raynsford.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 21

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY: SCHEDULE 2A TO THE POLICE ACT 1996

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 256, line 32, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 30, in page 256, line 39, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
No. 31, in page 256, line 45, leave out
'appointed by the Mayor of London'
and insert
'elected by the London Assembly'.
No. 32, in page 257, line 4, leave out 'Mayor' and insert 'London Assembly'.
No. 33, in page 257, line 6, leave out 'appointment he' and insert 'election it'.

Mr. Hughes: The self-contained issue that we shall now consider is not new. The group of amendments before us relates to what is currently schedule 21 to the Bill—the schedule inserting into the Police Act 1996 a schedule setting up the Metropolitan police authority.
The Bill says that the Metropolitan police authority shall consist of 23 members, 12 of whom shall be
"members of the London Assembly appointed"
by a process set up under paragraph 2. Then seven more people shall be appointed by a different process, and four magistrates. Paragraph 1(2) is a provision regarding other number permutations.
The provision for appointment, which follows in paragraph 2, is that
The members of the Metropolitan Police Authority"—
those 12 people—
"shall be appointed by the Mayor of London in accordance with this paragraph."
The last provision relates to paragraph 2(3), which states that the mayor shall make sure that, as far as practicable, the members for whose appointment he is responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the assembly. The Government are proposing an appointment process that is meant to reflect the balance of the assembly. The second part is welcome, but we are still unhappy about the first.
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and her colleagues know, we greatly welcome the setting up of the Metropolitan police authority, not just because her party in opposition and our party in the previous Parliament argued for it, as the record of the annual police debates in the House shows, but because the Metropolitan police have argued for it under both the present commissioner and his predecessor. They wanted someone other than the Home Secretary to be the Metropolitan police authority.
Under the present nonsensical arrangement, the Home Secretary, in Gilbert and Sullivan style, is both the Home Secretary of Britain and the police authority for London. He must therefore ask himself for permission to take certain measures, and give himself permission in reply.
The Government could quite reasonably have provided for the assembly to choose the members of the police authority, but instead they have insisted that the mayor choose them. That was reflected in the previous debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) intervened. There is no reason for the assembly not to choose its own representatives. It would still be possible for them to reflect the political balance of the assembly.
If there is to be a Metropolitan police authority, as one of the functional bodies under the Bill, there is no reason why it should not be for the assembly to elect the members, rather than for the mayor to appoint them. This is another example of too much power to the mayor and too little to the assembly.
We have rehearsed the arguments. The Government say that the mayor is the executive and effectively the assembly has only a consultative, deliberative or scrutinising role. We do not believe that that is the right balance. Londoners would be far happier if the 12 members of the Metropolitan police authority were chosen by the assembly from among its number, rather than being appointed by the mayor.

Mr. Ottaway: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, we debated the matter ad nauseam in Committee. The Minister will know what I mean. I can tell the Liberals that we have got the message. We know that they want the assembly to have more powers. They may think that they are making fresh points, but we have heard it all before. We realise what they want, but the assembly is not such a structure.
I cannot say that we agree wholeheartedly with the Government on the Bill, but we agree that the mayor, if there is to be one, should be strong, or strongish, and the assembly should not have a veto over the appointment of a body such as the police authority. The reason for that, and I imagine the reason why the Government have chosen such a structure, is to avoid recreating the old Greater London council.
I am wary of going into what went on at the GLC while the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is in the Chamber, as I know that he will pull me up and say that that is not how it was. In those days, as an ordinary member of the public, living and working in London and travelling on his underground system and so forth, I was aware of shenanigans going on in police committees. Committees were set up—I do not know what their status was, but the GLC was used as a vehicle to express views on police matters.

Mr. Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I thought I might be inviting trouble. Here we go.

Mr. Livingstone: While the incoming Labour GLC established a police committee that met in public, that merely brought into the public domain the secret meetings—from which the public and the opposition were

excluded—that took place between the Metropolitan police and the former Tory leader Sir Horace Cutler and his policy committee.

Mr. Ottaway: Yes, but as far as I was aware, the committee was not a formal part of the structure, or rather, there was no statutory requirement to have it.

Mr. Livingstone: That is exactly the point. The Labour GLC did things in public; the previous Tory GLC had private meetings with the police from which the opposition and the public were excluded.

Mr. Ottaway: Yes, but the point is that neither administration needed to have any meetings—they were ad hoc. The fundamental complaint against the GLC was that it was becoming a regional power base and it was being used for all sorts of things that were well beyond its statutory remit. I would have no difficulty with the hon. Member for Brent, East setting up committees to talk about this and that if he were mayor of London. That is the stuff of politics. The point is that that is the sort of thing that brought the GLC into disrepute. My concern is that if appointments to the new Metropolitan police authority become a political issue, we will run into all the old problems and the committee will become a political football.

Mr. McDonnell: It is important to get the record straight. The GLC was the collector of the Metropolitan police precept. At that point in time, the setting up of a police committee allowed Londoners the opportunity to debate how the precept could be spent and to inform the Metropolitan police of their views. Many of the views expressed then have been taken on board as key policies in the development of the Metropolitan police, including representation, consultation with local communities and ensuring that ethnic minorities are involved. The committee ensured a discussion about equal opportunities. Many of the discussions in the police committee, which was chaired by a current Home Office Minister, elaborated on what would be the consequences, in particular for London's multicultural society, if we did not take it on board that Londoners should have adequate representation on bodies such as the GLC's police committee.

Mr. Ottaway: I have no trouble with that. I said at the outset that I had no problem with what was going on. The point was that, as an ordinary member of the public in those days, I had the vision that the police were being made into a political football under the old GLC. That is my point and I am sure that the House will appreciate the clarification that ex-members of the GLC are bringing to this debate. They must recognise that, in the eyes of most people, that is why it was seen as becoming a political football.
Under the old GLC and the first-past-the-post electoral system, one party or the other won and the result was clear. It is highly likely that we will not have a clear winner in the GLA elections next year. The Labour party may get 40 per cent. and the Conservatives 35 per cent., or perhaps vice versa, and the balance of the votes will be for the Liberal Democrats. We just do not know. No doubt the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats will get together, knowing the sort of coalition that they go in


for now, and do some sort of deal. I do not think that that is desirable. If there were a clear, overall winner, there would be something in the system, but the form of proportional representation that we are to have for London and which we will have in Scotland is fairly ridiculous—it is probable that by next Friday the Liberal Democrat party will be in coalition with the Labour party in Scotland.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hesitate to rise because we have been debating this matter for so long, but surely after all these years the hon. Gentleman is not seriously arguing that if a party does not get a majority of the votes it should have the majority of seats and do what it likes, either in London or Scotland. Surely he cannot believe that any more.

Mr. Ottaway: I am not sure of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that if no party gets a majority, Labour and the Liberal Democrats will not enter into a dialogue over the Government of Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we have had enough of tartan tales.

Mr. Ottaway: I do not question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are questioning the method of appointment to the Metropolitan police authority. The relevant point is that if there is a minority administration in the new London authority, a deal will have to be struck between parties to form a majority to make the appointments to the authority. Exactly the same method of election will be used in Scotland and Wales as we shall have in London, leaving aside the 5 per cent. threshold agreed earlier this evening. With respect, that is why it is fair to draw comparisons between what will go on in Scotland later this week and what could well go on in London if the amendment were accepted.
Let no one be under any illusion as to what is going on. I have here a poster that happens to emerge from Castle Point council elections, which are due on Thursday. It says:
The local Liberal Democrat Party have chosen not to contest seats at the Castle Point Council elections on May 6.
Liberals can still exert their democratic influence in Castle Point. You can help choose who runs your council for the next four years. New Labour is closer to Liberals in both principle and policy. Do not stay at home and waste your vote. Vote Labour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been as generous as I can with the hon. Gentleman, but this is absurd.

Mr. Ottaway: I recognise that I may have pushed my luck, but the point is that there is a lot going on between the parties, and that is what would happen if we got into the situation that the amendment would create.

Mr. Gapes: I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman back to London, if he does not mind. He talked about dirty deals. Is he aware that in the London borough of Redbridge, the Conservatives and Liberals combined to

push through a joint budget and the Liberals put the Tories in as a minority administration? The yellow and the blue Tories joined together in Redbridge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted further down that road.

Mr. Ottaway: I would be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it were not for your ruling.
The proportional representation system that is being foisted on the people of London is the root cause of our concerns. It is possible that people will not be able to agree who are the best candidates, and that it will be necessary to reach a compromise.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend find great irony in the fact that we would probably be very happy for the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to say who should be a member of the police authority, as he has said what an awful mayor the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would make?

Mr. Ottaway: It is not for us to probe into quarrels between neighbours, but the story was in the Evening Standard. It seemed to show a radical split between Brents, East and South. Given that the hon. Member for Brent, South is a Home Office Minister and would be closely involved in the matter, it is a highly relevant point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) makes. He is from Derbyshire, but he takes a close interest in London matters. It is a valid point.
The serious point is that the consequence of the amendment would be a compromise. The new authority would become a political football. It would be reminiscent of all the old weaknesses of the GLC. Under those circumstances, we do not feel able to support the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for the setting up of the Metropolitan police authority. I am pleased that the official Opposition seem to be moving towards supporting it. However, the effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments, especially amendment No. 31, would be to have the 12 assembly members elected by the assembly rather than appointed by the mayor. All the other amendments are consequential on that amendment.
As has been pointed out, the matter was debated in Committee, if not ad nauseam, then for a very long time. At that stage I resisted identical amendments, two of which were supported by Conservative Members. I am afraid that I have not been persuaded to do other than resist these amendments now.
Amendment No. 31 is another illustration of the real theme expounded by the Liberal Democrats throughout the Committee stage. They wanted to extend the powers of the assembly at the expense of the mayor. I do not want to repeat the arguments about why we have struck a balance between the mayor and the assembly that was endorsed by Londoners in the referendum; but I will repeat my firm rejection of any argument that the amendments are justified on the basis that they would


bring the process of appointing members of the Metropolitan police authority, and the composition of its membership, into line with the process applying to other police authorities. Such an argument fails to take account of the unique model of governance that is being created for London, and ignores the existence of the mayor's strong strategic role.
We regard the power of appointment as crucial to the mayor's ability to take a high-level and strategic interest in the Metropolitan police authority's efforts to tackle crime and maintain an efficient and effective policing service in London. Moreover, the role is consistent with the mayor's power of appointment to the other three functional bodies. We do not want any dilution of the mayor's power in this respect.
The argument to which I have referred also ignores the split for which the Bill provides between the executive function of the mayor and the scrutinising function of the assembly. As we pointed out in Committee, local councils outside London combine those roles. It is simplistic to argue that, because local councillors elect their own members to police authorities, the assembly should elect its own members to the MPA. That incorrectly assumes that the assembly and local authorities are directly comparable, which they are not. However, I remind hon. Members of the requirement for the mayor to ensure that, as far as is practicable, his or her appointments reflect the balance of parties in the assembly.
I know that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) feels strongly about his amendments, but I think he also knows how strongly we feel. The mayor will have a crucial role in establishing the MPA and choosing its membership from the assembly. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Peter Brooke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Simon Hughes.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to allow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) to speak before me if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was trying to catch my eye.

Mr. Brooke: I had indeed been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for drawing it to your attention.
Responding to various amendments that the Liberal Democrats had tabled in Committee, the Minister argued that the existence of an alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition was not in itself a reason for her to be convinced by our arguments. I said that the fact that she held the strong views that she

expressed in Committee did not in itself constitute a reason for us to pay any attention to them, and that no greater logic was involved in the fact that her views were strong than in the fact that there was an alliance. Some might say, on the strength of the conduct of the Committee throughout, that the fact that the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats found something on which they both felt strongly, and in unison, was itself a suggestion that they might be right and the Government wrong.
The Minister has again cited the strong strategic role. You did not have the excitement and privilege of listening to our debates in Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can tell you that a consistent element was the attempt to find out whether the Government were introducing new clause after new clause, and rewriting the Bill as they went along, because they were smarting at claims made outside the House that the Secretary of State was being given all the powers and the mayor was not being given any, or because they had not actually written the Bill before Second Reading, and the cover was giving the Secretary of State powers in the first instance that could then be transferred to the mayor in the new clauses.
I accept that, although it took a long time, by painful extraction, to get an admission out of the Government, they acknowledged in the end that they had listened to criticism not only outside but in Committee, and had therefore decided to transfer powers to the mayor.
It has to be possible that the strong strategic role for the mayor to which the Minister alludes in the instance of the Metropolitan police authority was originally put in as a counterbalance to the criticism that all the powers were with the Secretary of State. That is not in itself a reason for the mayor to have a strong strategic role in the police authority.
The issue is essentially the principle of election against that of appointment. In Committee, I expressed surprise that the present Government should be so averse to election and so insistent on appointment. The view that has been expressed by the Opposition, not only in the Committee upstairs, but in the House now, is pluralistic: it is desirable that power should be moved down in any organisation, and any organisation where it is moved down is likely to be healthier than one where power is centralised.
The difficulties that the Government have had with their devolution programme—I will not go too far down that particular alley—is that they cannot decide whether they want power to be devolved from the centre, or to be retained in a centralised capacity at the heart of government. There is a real tension, which has been patent to anyone who has watched the Government's devolutionary programme.
We owe a debt to the Liberal Democrats for having brought the issue back to the House. The fact that the Minister sought to discredit the argument by linking it to other arguments that the Liberal Democrats have advanced, with which we might not have agreed—although we are in total agreement on the subject of election to the Metropolitan police authority—is not of itself an Exocet through the Liberal Democrats' argument. The hon. Lady repeated the arguments that she used in Committee. I personally thought that she had some obligation to do rather more than she did in Committee, when she spoke for six and a half paragraphs in response to the Opposition's points.
In essence, the argument that the Minister has deployed on the issue, which is extremely important to the future of London, is that, because what the Government are proposing is different from what we have had in the past, everything about it should be different. As a Conservative, with a large C and a small c, I do not find that argument persuasive.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) had a chance to speak. He led for the Conservatives on the issue in Committee. We were grateful to him then, as we are now. Like him, I listened to the Minister's reply and found unconvincing the simple logic that, because at least some of the other agencies that will be set up by the Greater London Authority—functional agencies, as they are described—have to have a particular shape, it follows that the Metropolitan police authority has to have a particular shape.
I reflect on the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who tried to describe how the proposals that we were putting forward were dangerous because they reflected an electoral system that was in the Bill, which gives proportionality to the make-up of the assembly. We argue that it would far better for an assembly that was representative of the votes that were cast in London to choose the members of the police authority, rather than the mayor who, first, might not have won a majority in being elected; secondly, might be some way off having won a majority, even of those who cast their votes; and thirdly, might have won by a handful of votes, whether or not he or she had a majority. As a result, the mayor would be vested with all the power. In choosing the representatives of the Metropolitan police authority, it would be better to have the power shared, rather than concentrated.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster shares a second argument with us. The Minister said that we should not draw a parallel with other police authorities in England, whose representatives are selected not by the chair of the authority, or by some other individual, but by members of the authority. She said that we should not follow the same logic here. She argued that it did not apply because the Metropolitan police authority is a different sort of police authority.
10.30 pm
The Metropolitan police service has a particular London focus, with some diplomatic and royal responsibilities, and it is bigger than other police services in the United Kingdom. However, it does not necessarily follow that the general principle established across England some years ago—when police legislation was amended providing a tripartite structure for police authorities, comprising magistrates, local authority representatives, and those chosen by the two groups—should not apply also to London.
Liberal Democrat Members have also not been won over by the argument that we have to give the mayor the substitute power to appoint members, rather than allowing a process by which police authority representatives are chosen by London's councillors.
As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, thereby setting bells ringing, and as I said—which the Minister acknowledged, for which I

am grateful—although the Government are ending the Home Secretary's role as London police authority and democratising the authority, which we welcome, we should still be trying—now, at the beginning—to get it right.
If the Government insist on their position, gradually the assembly will wish to assert its right to choose its representatives, not only in the police authority but possibly in other bodies. Londoners would prefer that the authority be a chosen, representative body, rather than an appointed one. I predict that—even if the Government get their way today, and sustain their position when the Bill goes to the other place—the logic of their position, and its consequences for representation of the people of London, dictates that that position will not hold for all time.
If policing in London is to be credible to the maximum number of Londoners, and if Londoners are really to believe that they have the best policing, more of their elected representatives should participate in the selection of the London police authority.
The Minister has reiterated the Government's position, and I realise that the Government will not give way on it. We shall therefore not press the amendment to a vote, as we did in Committee. Although we may well return to the issue in other debates, for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 234

APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER.

Kate Hoey: I beg to move amendment No. 146, in page 127, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
'(5) Before recommending to Her Majesty that She appoint a person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) any recommendations made to him by the Metropolitan Police Authority; and
(b) any representations made to him by the Mayor.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 147 to 149.
Government new clause 47—Appointment and removal of commanders
Government new clause 48—Other members of the Metropolitan Police Force.
Government amendment No. 150.

Kate Hoey: This group of amendments is concerned primarily with the appointment of Metropolitan police officers. There are also provisions on the removal of Metropolitan officers, and some miscellaneous matters.
I should like to speak first to amendments Nos. 146 and 147, which deal with appointment of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As I informed the Committee when we were debating the Bill's current provisions, it has always been our intention that the Metropolitan police authority shall have a role in the appointment of those two officers. Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 fulfil the commitment that I gave to the Committee that we should table amendments enshrining the MPA's role in the Bill.


Amendment No. 146 deals with the appointment of the commissioner. It provides that, before the Secretary of State makes his recommendation to Her Majesty, he shall have regard to any recommendations from the MPA and any representations from the mayor.
Amendment No. 147 makes equivalent provision for the appointment of the deputy commissioner—except that the commissioner, rather than the mayor, will have the right to make representations.
The amendments give the MPA an important role in the appointment process. They are consistent with our policy of giving the MPA, so far as possible, the same powers and duties as those held by police authorities outside London. They also take account of recommendation 6 of the Macpherson report, on the appointment of chief officers of the Metropolitan police.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that the posts of commissioner and deputy commissioner are special ones. They head the capital's police force, which is the largest force in the country—20 per cent. of all police in England and Wales are in the Met—and performs a range of national and international functions far greater than those of police forces outside London.
Given the importance of the posts and the continuing responsibilities that the Home Secretary will have for the national and international functions of the Met, it would be wrong for the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner to mirror exactly the appointment of chief constables. Our amendments reflect that. The appointments will remain royal ones and the Home Secretary will have the responsibility of making the recommendation to the Queen.
The precise arrangements for handling the appointments will be decided later, taking account as necessary of the outcome of the working group on leadership, which is currently considering the selection, training and support of senior police officers. We envisage the MPA identifying a few preferred candidates—probably between two and four—and submitting details and recommendations to the Home Secretary. He would then make his recommendation to Her Majesty having regard to that list and any representations made by the mayor.
We believe that the amendments strike the right balance. Through the MPA and the mayor, they will give Londoners a say in who will lead the capital's police service, while recognising the distinct nature of the appointments and the need for the Home Secretary to play a more active role than he does in chief constable appointments.
New clause 47 makes provision for the appointment and removal of commanders, similar to clause 238 in respect of assistant commissioners. It gives the MPA the same role in their appointment and removal as police authorities outside London have in respect of assistant chief constables, to whom commanders are regarded as equivalent in rank. The MPA will be able to appoint commanders or call on them to retire, subject in both cases to the approval of the Home Secretary. That is consistent with the general policy of the Bill that the powers and duties of the MPA should, as far as possible, be the same as those of police authorities outside London. It is also consistent with Macpherson recommendation 6.
Amendment No. 149 is related to the new clause. Paragraph 84 of schedule 22 provides that the Home Secretary may require the MPA to exercise its power to call on the commissioner, deputy commissioner or an assistant commissioner to retire, but before the Home Secretary does so, or approves a request by the MPA to sanction such a removal, the individual in question has a right to make representations to the Home Secretary. Now that we have made specific provision in the Bill for the arrangements governing the removal of commanders, we wish to apply the provisions of that paragraph to them as well as to the three commissioner ranks. Amendment No. 149 achieves that. For the sake of clarity, it also lists the four senior Met officer ranks to which the paragraph now applies.
New clause 48 is concerned with the remaining ranks of the Met. It lists those ranks below commander that may be held in the Met—superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. It also provides that their appointment and promotion are to be made by the commissioner in accordance with regulations under section 50 of the Police Act 1996. The new clause mirrors the provision made for forces outside London by section 13 of the 1996 Act. In effect, it replaces sections 4 and 5 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829, which provide the current basis for appointing all Met ranks below that of assistant commissioner to be repealed by the Bill. That is another example of the Bill aligning arrangements in the Met with arrangements elsewhere.
Amendment No. 148 is also purely technical. It removes a reference in section 1(3) of the 1996 Act, which will no longer be required once the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district are redrawn to bring them into line with the outer boundary of Greater London. Provision for changing the MPD boundary is contained in clause 239. We intend that those changes will take place on 1 April 2000.
The amendments and new clauses set the right legislative framework for the appointment and removal of officers in the Met. They are a positive step forward in the policing of London, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Greenway: I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to proceedings on the Bill in relation to the Metropolitan police. These are important amendments because we need there to be public confidence in the Greater London Authority and in the Metropolitan police authority which the Bill creates. There must be confidence in and support for the leadership of the commissioner, his deputy and senior officers. Equally, there must be a structure to ensure that those important appointments are not subject to unnecessary political interference. On the whole, the way in which the Bill will be structured if the amendments are passed strikes the right balance.
The importance of leadership in the Metropolitan police has been debated recently. We have exchanged views in the House about the Macpherson report, to which the Minister referred; particularly its sixth recommendation. Following the publication of the report, some called for the commissioner to resign. The general view in the House was that that would have been a retrograde step. The House sought to strike a balance between an acceptance that some criticism was valid—that the police had made mistakes and were willing to accept that, in some respects, leadership may have been lacking—and a


reaffirmation that the police service in London was one in which the people of London and the country as a whole could take justifiable pride.
No one could have anticipated the circumstances of the past two or three weeks, and the extent to which those events have enabled the police to show how professional, resilient and courageous they are. All of us would rather that that professionalism and leadership could have been displayed without so many lives being ruined by the bombs in Brixton, east London and Soho—a part of London that I used to police all those years ago.
The House must reflect that such is the nature of policing: it will always be like that. The tragedies, the unforeseen incidents and the terrorism in London over the past 10 or 20 years—including some high-profile, almost catastrophic incidents—have been where the importance of the leadership of the Metropolitan police has been most evident. I should like to place on record tonight our overwhelming support for and tributes to the work of Metropolitan police officers in recent days.
I have been with the commissioner and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) at a police and parliamentary scheme dinner in the other place. It would be fair to reflect that everyone supported what the police have achieved. We must ensure that the arrangements for the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner reflect the importance of the job that they do.
10.45 pm
I know that the Government have thought long and hard about how the appointments should be structured. There was a desire to ensure that the arrangements for the police authority should reflect the Police Act 1996 provisions while acknowledging that London is a special case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) pressed that point in Committee. The events of the past two or three weeks are a stark reminder of that.
How can one ensure that those who have a valid contribution to make in the appointment process for the commissioner and the deputy—who will from time to time perform the functions of the commissioner and may later go on to become commissioner—can have that opportunity, while maintaining the final say in the right place?
In other forces, the police authority effectively chooses the chief constable and the Home Secretary approves. The amendments would set up a system that is better for London, whereby, effectively, the Home Secretary recommends to Her Majesty and she appoints—the public will have more confidence in that, given the special nature of London—but there is a mechanism for the police authority to make recommendations. The emphasis is different.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster did a noble job of speaking for the Opposition on these matters in Committee. In preparation, he and I cast our eye carefully over the relevant clauses to ensure that the balance was right. The one glaring deficiency was that there was no mechanism for the police authority to be consulted. I have read the Hansard report, and I am glad that the Minister said not that there had been an oversight but that the Government intended to deliver such a mechanism. The time spent in finding the

right form of words has been well spent. We are comfortable with the provisions as they will stand under amendments Nos. 146 and 147.
The provisions of the Police Act 1996 are relatively recent. We are glad that the Government have decided to replicate those provisions. Such early confirmation of them is welcome. The Minister may smile, but it is important that, as far as possible, there should be cross-party agreement on such matters, given the seriousness and importance of what we are trying to achieve. That is equally true for the arrangements under which commissioners and senior rank officers, in any police force, could potentially be required to retire, but it is especially true for the four Association of Chief Police Officers ranks in the Metropolitan police, from commissioner down to commander.
It is important that the House understands how the mechanisms work. While it is right to make a different case for London for the appointment of commissioner and deputy commissioner, it is probably fair that the mechanisms for their removal are the same as those elsewhere. For reasons that I shall explain in a moment, that will give some added protection.
Under section 11 of the Police Act, the police authority can ask a chief officer to go, but it requires the Home Secretary's approval, and he can say no. Under section 42, the Home Secretary can require a police authority to exercise its section 11 powers. That is a valuable reassurance for London, because if the power lies in the hands of the Home Secretary rather than the police authority, it underpins significantly the operational independence of the chief officer of police—in this case, the commissioner or his deputy. It also minimises the risk of any politically motivated witch hunt against such a senior officer.
The events of the past few weeks graphically illustrate the importance of ensuring that the structure is as it appears in the Bill. It also makes sense to ensure, as in Government amendment No. 149, that assistant commissioners and commanders are treated the same, because a commander is of equal rank to a chief constable. Indeed, many commanders go on to become chief constables. They are ACPO rank officers and should have special arrangements.
When I read Government new clause 47, I was surprised that we had not realised earlier that the Bill contained nothing about the appointment of commanders, who have an important role in the Metropolitan police. It is important for the House to note that a commander may not exercise the powers of commissioner, and that justifies the police authority appointing commanders, rather than the Home Secretary being required to do so.
We welcome the spelling out in Government new clause 48 of the ranks that will be maintained in the Metropolitan police. It is worth confirming that those ranks will continue. Of course, the chief superintendent rank was abolished in the aftermath of the Sheehy recommendations. There is some concern among serving police officers that as we move to a flatter management style—the Minister knows that we have discussed the issue before in police debates—the opportunities for promotion and advancement are reduced. I hope that the police service in London will be reassured by the inclusion in the Bill of the retention of those ranks. The continuing drive for greater efficiency in the police


service has meant that the shake-out of officers at senior ranks has led to fewer police officers overall in London, but there are more constables. There certainly were more constables when the previous Government left office, as I shall go on repeating at every opportunity.
As the Minister said, the remaining two amendments are entirely technical. They seem to be in order, in terms of the Police Act 1996.
I am glad to have had the chance to say a few words about the matter, as the creation of a police authority for London is an historic step. As we heard earlier, the political argument about it has gone on for years. Conservative Members have endeavoured to take a constructive approach, and the Bill's structure is as good now as it is likely to be. I know how much the commissioner is looking forward to having the support of the police authority. We wish the authority all success in its work of supporting the police in London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As has been stated, this short debate is effectively the only one that will be held on the police in London. I have only a couple of remarks to make but, like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I shall preface them by repeating what I said in Committee: all of us owe much affection and gratitude to the police officers who serve us every day.
The events of the past three weeks remind us of that. The first incident took place in Brixton, in the Minister's constituency, and was followed by bombs in Brick lane and Soho. All hon. Members have constituents and friends who visit those parts of the city regularly, as we do ourselves. I was invited to visit the Brick lane community the morning after the incident there, and the people I met were clearly very grateful for the regular service that the police provided. If the person who has been arrested and charged is found, by due process of law, to be guilty of the offences, that will be a further tribute to the speed of the police's detection and intelligence processes. It shows how quickly the police can act to deal with people who put at risk civil liberty and peace.
I do not want to repeat the debate in Standing Committee about the differences between the Metropolitan police and the other services. However, the Minister referred to one other recent event, the Liberal Democrat interpretation of which differs from hers. The report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, which has been debated in this House, referred to the way in which policing in London should be organised. We believe that police appointments in London should be made in a way that reflects the pattern of the other police services in England and Wales.
The Minister did not claim that the Government were implementing exactly the recommendations of the Lawrence report. She claimed—fairly, I think—that the Government's recommendations reflected the report. We acknowledge that and, although we think that the report wanted the Government to go further, that argument is for later. However, I accept that Government amendments No. 146 and 147 show that the Government have taken on board the point made in Standing Committee that the Metropolitan police authority and the mayor should play a part in the appointments of the commissioner—London's senior police officer—and of the deputy commissioner.
Liberal Democrat Members may differ with the Minister about whether the commissioner should be a royal appointment or a police authority appointment but,

given that the Government want the appointment to be made by the monarch, we are grateful for the wider process of deliberation and consultation that will be undertaken before it is made.
11 pm
As the Minister said, amendment No. 148 is technical. Like the hon. Member for Ryedale, I had not spotted that we had not covered commanders in considering the senior officers and ensuring that there was a provision comparable to that pertaining to other police forces for their appointment and removal. I accept that the rank of commander is appropriate for inclusion in the provision. I was intrigued to learn—my homework had not gone so far—that new clause 48 amends in its wake an Act of about 1825, which was not long after the creation of the Metropolitan police. No doubt we will reach that repeal in the consequential amendments. It is in any case a logical amendment.
Given the Government's position on who should be charged with the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner, and their decision that the system should be different from that elsewhere, the amendment improves things by involving more people, and the Metropolitan police authority, in the process: it tidies what was left untidy. To that extent, this group of amendments is welcome.

Mr. Brooke: The House understood why we did not have a statement this afternoon on the recent bombs and the charges laid by the Metropolitan police. Apart from anything else, that has given us more time to make progress on the Bill. However, it meant that there was no opportunity to pay tribute to the Metropolitan police for the remarkable speed of the detection that led to the charges. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, if they are confirmed by the courts, it will have been a triumph. The third bombing occurred in my constituency, but it was the events in Brixton and Brick lane before the Soho bomb that led to the case. I apologise if I err in terms of sub judice, but I wanted to put my commendation on record.

Kate Hoey: I thank hon. Members for their support for the police and the amendments. In the past few weeks, we have seen the Metropolitan police at their best. We are very grateful for their work. We all hope that recent events will not be repeated. Where those terrible events have happened, our communities have made a united and determined attempt to pull together to fight against racism. It has brought communities together, certainly in my area.
This is an important moment for policing in London. We are moving forward with all-party support to the setting up of the Metropolitan police authority. I think that we have got the balance right. This was difficult, but important to achieve. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the people of London need to have confidence in the police, in the leadership of the police, and in the balance between their capital, national functions and their ordinary policing functions. I welcome hon. Members' support.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 236

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Amendment made: No. 147, in page 128, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert—

'(5) Before recommending to Her Majesty that She appoint a person as the Deputy Commissioner, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) any recommendations made to him by the Metropolitan Police Authority; and
(b) any representations made to him by the Commissioner.'.—[Kate Hoey.]

Schedule 22

FURTHER AMENDMENTS RELATING TO METROPOLITAN POLICE ETC

Amendments made: No. 148, in page 271, line 1, at end insert—

'Police areas

63A. In section 1 of the Police Act 1996 (police areas) in subsection (3) (references to local government areas) the words "but excluding any part of it within the metropolitan police district" shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 149, in page 274, line 34, leave out from 'upon' to 'retire' in line 35 and insert—

'(a) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, or
a Commander in the Metropolitan Police Force, to'.—[Kate Hoey.]

New Clause 47

APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF COMMANDERS

After section 9F of the Police Act 1996 there shall be inserted—

"Commanders

9G.—(1) The ranks that may be held in the metropolitan police force shall include that of Commander.

(2) Any appointment of a Commander in the metropolitan police force shall be made by the Metropolitan Police Authority, but subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and to regulations under section 50.

(3) Subsections (1) to (3) of section 9E shall apply in relation to a Commander in the metropolitan police force as they apply to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

(4) Subsection (3) is without prejudice to—

(a) any regulations under section 50, or
(b) any regulations under the Police Pensions Act 1976.".'.—[Kate Hoey.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 48

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE

'. After section 9G of the Police Act 1996 there shall be inserted—

"Other members of the metropolitan police force

9H.—(1) In addition to—

(a) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
(b) Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

(c)Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and
(d) Commander,

the ranks that may be held in the metropolitan police force shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations under section 50.

(2) In the case of the metropolitan police force, the ranks so prescribed shall include those of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable.

(3) In the metropolitan police force, appointments and promotions to any rank below that of Commander shall be made in accordance with regulations under section 50 by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.'.—[Kate Hoey.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 251

PUBLICATION

Amendment made: No. 125, in page 135, leave out lines 11 to 15.—[Mate Hoey]

Clause 259

AMENDMENTS OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 139, leave out lines 8 to 24.
In Standing Committee, there was a considerable amount of debate over the mayor's planning powers and the scope of the spatial development strategy in its interaction with the London boroughs. There is no doubt that if ever there was a point of clash and conflict between the new authority and the London boroughs, it would be that of planning. While the Bill was in Standing Committee, the Minister announced in response to a parliamentary question that he had—I wanted to say "climbed down", but perhaps that is unfair—relaxed or softened the threshold at which the mayor could or could not intervene. Perhaps it would be better to say that he had raised the threshold. There are now fewer areas in which the mayor can intervene with his spatial development strategy.
In Standing Committee, I quoted extensively from Estates Gazette, because a number of learned people in the property world were most concerned. The Minister will be comforted to learn that Estates Gazette has now praised—slightly unfairly—his policy U-turn. I would call it a relaxation. Estates Gazette stated:
Helical Bar's Gerald Kaye said: 'Inserting another raft of controls is unnecessary. Anything that reduces those restrictions is to be welcomed.'
Simon Silver of Derwent Valley said: 'I'd be glad if they've scaled it back, it's another tier of red tape.'
The Minister could say that his parliamentary reply received one, or perhaps two, cheers from the property sector. Nevertheless, the fundamental concerns that existed in the Standing Committee still exist. We are justified in tabling the amendment and in asking the Government to spell out exactly how they intend to proceed.
The Government propose to add an unnecessary third tier to planning control in London, by allowing the mayor to direct local authorities to refuse planning permissions. That is a fairly odd state of affairs for the following reasons. The proposals have caused considerable concern


in planning and development circles. In the view of Conservative Members and of those in the development world, the proposals are unnecessary; they will cause delay, uncertainty and confusion. They add bureaucracy and harm competitiveness—in all honesty, the City of London's greatest concern is that its ability to compete with, for example, Frankfurt will be damaged. Following the Standing Committee, we must add to that indictment of the Government's proposals the charge of total incoherence.
Ministers say that, like the spatial development strategy, the mayor's power of direction is confined to matters of strategic importance; however, unlike their action in respect of the spatial development strategy, they refuse to write that into the Bill. The result is that local authorities and the Secretary of State have to apply a presumption in favour of the development plan when determining planning applications and appeals, but the mayor does not have to do so—he can ignore that cornerstone of planning law. That is a confusing state of affairs, to say the least.
To add a third tier of confusion, in Committee, Ministers tabled an amendment to allow the Secretary of State to prohibit the London boroughs from acting on the mayor's direction. The Minister said that that would apply while the Secretary of State decided whether to call in an application. However, the application would go to the Secretary of State anyway, on appeal. I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Secretary of State how many planning applications the Labour Government had called in after the relevant local authority had decided to refuse permission; the answer was not only unusually short, but unusually informative: none. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the power of call-in will be exercised in the manner suggested by Ministers.
Either Ministers do not understand the ministerial call-in, or the real purpose of the provision is to allow the Secretary of State to overrule the mayor. Throughout, we have argued that the mayor's power to direct refusal is unnecessary because it damages the competitiveness of London and is a bureaucratic muddle, but it now appears to be a ministerial muddle that could best be cleared up by deleting the provision from the Bill.
The Minister must realise that serious sums of money are involved, and that development is instrumental in and relevant to the prosperity of London's economy. The plain truth is that, if the planning system is such that it undermines confidence or causes concern in the development world, there will be no development. The Government should think hard about the mismatch in the powers of call-in in the Bill.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and I share his confusion about the Government's true intentions. I speak as one who, for several years, served on a local authority planning committee in central London. I was serving when the old GLC was abolished and recall that, in our part of London, there were peals of joy at that unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, which second-guessed and oversaw all our planning decisions, being done away with. At that time, the planning committee for Westminster council was considering early proposals for the development of Covent Garden, and I

well remember what a blessed release the abolition of the GLC was to those of us who wanted a new and thriving Covent Garden, because it meant that the proposals would not suffer further delay by being subjected by that authority to trial by fire.
My concern about section 21A(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which the Bill would add to that Act and the amendment would delete from the Bill, is that there appears to be no limit on how detailed the powers of the mayor might become. I agree with my hon. Friend that development activity in London would be curtailed and discouraged, and that it would cost more. I am sure Ministers understand that the longer and more uncertain the planning process, the harder it is to justify. Therefore, the developers' profits must be much greater before they are prepared to take a risk.
11.15 pm
It is worth considering what has happened to London in the years since the abolition of that centralised planning authority. Has London fallen apart? Has its pre-eminence vanished? On the contrary, for the past seven years, European business leaders have voted London the best city for business. London has left cities such as Paris, Brussels and Frankfurt in its wake. That is what has happened since that centralising force was abolished and the planning process was speeded up. That is a great tribute to the wisdom of the central London boroughs, which understood exactly what businesses needed and how to balance those needs.
I remember a proposal in the early days to return to residential accommodation some of the houses in central London that were developed into offices after the war. That happens all over the place now, but it was a rather revolutionary idea in the early 1980s. I have no doubt that the Greater London council would have stopped that change of use in its tracks. It would have regarded the proposal as appealing to the overly wealthy without recognising that there is an important constituency in central London that helps businesses to thrive and with which the local council—in this case, Westminster—was far more in tune than the GLC.
There is also a confidentiality aspect. In the course of our discussions, which enjoyed cross-party agreement within the council, we became aware of the extreme commercial sensitivity of the matters under consideration. We were advised by our officers that, if certain information was revealed to the wider world, it could have an impact measurable in tens of millions of pounds in today's money. To the council's great credit—it was also proof of its probity—that did not happen. By retaining the confidentiality of all concerned, a change of policy and a very satisfactory result was achieved in central London. Many former offices became residential accommodation, in line with the wider planning process, and the wider needs of London and the heritage lobby, which has not stopped singing the praises of that policy.
Imagine what would happen if such a proposal were advanced under this Bill. What reassurances can the Minister provide that confidentiality will be maintained? How may we be assured that a future mayor of London, who may not be in tune with the planning needs of a particular borough, will understand the import of such a decision? How can we be sure that a mayor of London


who is hostile to the political direction and will of the people of a particular borough will not use the Bill's powers to frustrate them?
I alight upon an example from my ward of Paddington and Little Venice, which I represented for four years. A group of houses in the area had been used as hotel accommodation. However, when the hotel closed and the accommodation was no longer required by the national company involved, it was proposed to develop the houses either as a rehabilitation centre for those recovering from alcohol and drug abuse or as residential accommodation. As the local councillor, I explained to the council that I had no doubt that the people in my ward wanted to see more residential accommodation in the area. It would be unsuitable to place a drug and rehabilitation centre, which would place local children at risk, in the middle of a residential area.
However, the Greater London council, at that time under the leadership of the Labour party and the present hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), was very much of a mind that it wanted to introduce such a rehabilitation centre. Only by prevailing on the landowner—the Church Commissioners—were we able to ensure that the future of that block of property was in keeping with the requirements and desires of local people, not the political imperatives of the group in charge at County hall. The planning process did not enable us to do so.
What guarantee will the Minister give tonight that we shall not, at some time, find the new Greater London Authority under the aegis of a group and a mayor who have their own political imperatives, and who seek to ride roughshod over the desires and wishes of a local community whose local council is of a different political hue? That is the key issue, which must be addressed tonight. If it is not, London's success will be in jeopardy.
That success has been recognised as far away as the United States. A few years ago, it was reported in Fortune magazine that
The city once had the highest unemployment of any European capital, but today it has the lowest".
When politics intervenes in the planning process, jobs are at stake. Local authorities recognise the local need for jobs, and the local desires of their community, in a way that the previous example of a Greater London authority signally failed to do.
As I understand it, the purpose of amendment No. 135 is to probe the Government to make them aware of those significant concerns. How do they propose to protect people in their communities in London from the GLA's becoming the political tool of people who are politically driven in a different direction?

Mr. Raynsford: It is instructive to note the difference between the tone of the debate on amendment No. 135 and the tone of the debate on the preceding group of amendments.
In the preceding debate, the opposition parties adopted a highly constructive and non-partisan approach, and sought to reflect the genuine concern that we achieve a balance between, on the one hand, the new powers of the Greater London Authority, Metropolitan police authority and mayor and, on the other, the existing arrangements for oversight of the Metropolitan police. By contrast, as we have debated amendment No. 135, the Opposition

have reverted to their characteristic partisan line of denigrating the proposal by means of generally wide-of-the-mark generalisations, rhetoric and comments that fly in the face of any logic or understanding of the way in which London operates.
I must tell the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) that I fail to recognise his description of the City of Westminster as a paragon of probity and foresight in planning. Anyone who has experience of the machinations of that authority over the past 10 years would form a very different view.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that our proposals in relation to the mayor's planning powers were neither necessary nor coherent. He thought that they would harm London's competitiveness—that they would be bureaucratic. He is completely wrong, and he was obviously not paying attention to the debate earlier this evening about the three principal purposes—the three pillars—of the new authority: a duty to promote economic development and wealth creation, a duty to promote social advancement and a duty to promote environmental improvement. Of course, planning is fundamental to bringing all those three together, because the authority will have an obligation to achieve coherence between its three principal purposes.
The authority will therefore require powers to intervene at a strategic level. That is far from the framework that existed under the old GLC. Much more detailed intervention powers were available to the GLC, and that resulted in unnecessary and sometimes time-wasting conflict between the GLC and the boroughs. We recognise that there was an overlap, and we have sought not to repeat it. We have tried to establish a clear distinction between the strategic level, which will involve the mayor, and the day-to-day handling of planning responsibilities, which will remain with the London boroughs.
If the mayor is to exercise a strategic oversight, he or she must have a means of intervening in the decision-making process where issues of genuine strategic importance are concerned. The special development strategy will set the framework for the mayor's policies but, even with a plan-led system, the success or failure of strategic policies is ultimately determined through individual development control decisions.
We are proposing that the mayor should become a statutory consultee for certain strategic planning applications. That will allow the mayor to represent the pan-London view on those applications. In addition to being a statutory consultee, the mayor will be able to direct a borough to refuse planning permission for those applications on strategic grounds.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me for the third time today. If the mayor directs a planning authority to refuse an application, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State upholds the view of the applicant and grants planning permission, will the mayor be responsible for the costs involved? If that is the case, why the chimera of pretending that the mayor has any powers at all?
For the third time, I intervene to ask the Minister whether the Government are devolving power. If the mayor acted as the Secretary of State in London on planning matters, whether we agree with that or not, at least it would be


clear cut, but that is not the case. The Government are not giving any powers to the Greater London Authority, through either the assembly or the mayor.

Mr. Raynsford: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable expertise in these matters, but he is wrong. There is a need for a strategic Londonwide role. However, we do not propose that that role should replace the power of the Secretary of State. In the case of London uniquely, that would remove the ability of an applicant to appeal to the Secretary of State as the final arbiter. We believe that that final recourse to the Secretary of State should remain, in London as everywhere else.
We are seeking to create a framework in which the mayor can intervene at a strategic level, but we shall maintain the safeguard of the appeal to the Secretary of State. If a matter were considered by the Secretary of State on appeal, the mayor would have to defend his or her direction at any subsequent inquiry and could be liable to costs, if it were found that he or she had acted unreasonably. That is a proper discipline, which would apply in the case of any other authority that had refused permission, where the case was subsequently considered on appeal by the Secretary of State.
A consultation exercise on the type of application on which the mayor should be consulted was issued last year. I published my final response on 15 March. The hon. Member for Croydon, South acknowledged that we had listened to representations during the consultation period, and that we had modified the categories to ensure that only issues of purely strategic significance would be subject to the statutory consultee procedure and therefore the right of direction.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister confirm that the assurances that he is giving us will all have to be contained in what is described in the clause as a development order, as those restrictions on the power of the mayor are not contained in the clause?

Mr. Raynsford: Of course. If the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the planning process, he will recognise that a great deal of detail is inevitably set out in development orders or specific planning policy guidance. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to put that level of detail on the face of legislation, as that would make it difficult to amend at a future date. The hon. Gentleman will know that we debated and discussed the categories of development that might be subject to mayoral powers of direction. We concluded that the categories should be very large-scale development, including major residential developments of more than 500 units or 10 hectares. In a few years, circumstances may lead to the view that that should be amended. Clearly, it will be easier to do so by secondary means, rather than a change in legislation. That is always the case with planning matters and it will be no different for these proposals.
As well as large-scale developments, we also prescribe those that could have an impact over a wide area, those that concern major new infrastructure proposals and those that could have a significant impact on key strategic

policies or that may affect key strategic sites. The announcement set out those categories in more detail and will be taken forward through secondary legislation.
Amendment No. 135 undermines the mayor's ability to intervene in those cases. It is not a probing but a wrecking amendment. If it were agreed, it would completely destroy the ability of the mayor to act strategically and prevent him or her from intervening. The amendment would delete from clause 259 the ability of the Secretary of State to give the power of direction to the mayor.
I repeat that it is not our intention to let the mayor interfere in day-to-day matters that are better left to the boroughs. As I explained at length in Committee, our plans are designed to ensure that decisions are taken at the right level. The boroughs will still be the local planning authorities for their areas and, as my response to the consultation exercise made clear, the applications that the mayor will see will be truly strategic and limited in number. We estimate that it will be around 150 to 250 planning applications out of some 70,000 submitted in London each year. That puts it in perspective.
One is talking not about the mayor intervening in the vast majority of cases that are processed by the London boroughs, but about the mayor having the power to intervene as a statutory consultee in only 150 to 200 applications a year. Of course, the mayor will not choose to intervene in many of those cases. We are talking about a limited power, which is focused on the strategic level.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that the power is subject to a development order, would it not be unreasonable for a future holder of the hon. Gentleman's post to issue an order that greatly expanded the number of cases that might be considered by the mayor?

Mr. Raynsford: No, as I made it clear, in planning matters, circumstances change. In any sensible democratic society, it is appropriate that there should be a mechanism for changes to be reflected through changing secondary legislation. However, Ministers are accountable to the House and, if they propose changes in secondary legislation, they will be subject to votes in the House. That is the right balance.
As I explained in Committee, we see the power of direction very much as long-stop power, which the mayor would neither need nor wish to use in more than a small proportion of the cases in which he or she would be a statutory consultee. We expect that the mayor will want to work collaboratively with the boroughs. He or she may be content to give some comments on an application drawing attention to strategic matters that the borough should ensure are addressed, but would otherwise be happy to leave it to take the final decision. Alternatively, the mayor may wish to take the opportunity to express support for a proposal, particularly if it furthers or assists the mayor's plans as set out in the special development strategy, or the transport or development strategies.
The argument that our plans will cause undue delay in the processing of applications is also incorrect. We will ensure that the procedures are quick and efficient.
The mayor will be consulted at an early stage, along with other consultees, shortly after the planning application is first submitted. Unless the mayor signals that he or she does not wish to see the application again, the mayor will have a further 14 days within which to issue a direction once the borough has resolved to grant or refuse permission, but before it issues its decision notice. It is an extremely short period of time, but that is necessary to avoid unreasonable delay. However, it gives the mayor the crucial power to exercise a strategic influence.
That is the correct balance if we are—

Mr. Brooke: The Minister said a moment ago that the mayor might use his powers to encourage a particular application. I thought that we had discussed that issue in Committee, when the Government took a contrary view to the one that he just expressed. Where is the legislative cover for what he just said?

Mr. Raynsford: I did not say that the mayor could intervene to require an authority to agree an application. I said that the mayor might wish to encourage an authority to take such a decision. It would be for the authority to decide. The mayor's power of direction is simply a power to require the authority not to grant permission in individual cases. The mayor has wider powers in relation to economic development and transportation and it is precisely in that context that the mayor may well feel that a particular development meets strategic purposes, is desirable and should be encouraged. It would be perfectly proper for the mayor to express that view, but the mayor would have no formal power to require a local authority to agree a planning application on that basis.
I believe that we have struck the right balance. It enables the mayor to pursue the three purposes that we have already debated—economic development, social advancement and environmental improvement. The planning process will enable the mayor to exercise a positive influence so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister describes amendment No. 135 as a wrecking amendment. The definition of a wrecking amendment is one that would make the system unworkable. To that extent, he is right. I put it to him that, in the view of the professionals that I have consulted, the legislation before the House is unworkable. I advise the Minister to take some professional advice on this matter before the Bill comes back to the House for debates on Lords amendments. There is widespread concern that the situation is not clear at the moment.
As I said in Committee, those in the planning Bar see a lifetime's work emerging out of the Bill. Keen as I am to see the legal profession suitably financed, I do not think that the Bill should be the vehicle for that. We tabled the amendment as a probing amendment to draw to the Government's attention the unease that is felt in planning circles. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 265

THE MAYOR'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 141, line 30, leave out 'global warming' and insert 'climate change'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 141, line 32, after 'production' , insert , minimisation'.
No. 6, in clause 267, page 143, line 24, after 'the', insert 'minimisation,'.

Mr. Hughes: In Committee, I was given some cause for encouragement when I moved a similar amendment. The first proposal would simply replace in the list of environmental functions the phrase "global warming" with the phrase in the amendment, which is now more generally regarded as scientifically accurate. We moved the amendment not just because we thought that it was better to use the phrase "climate change", but because all the Government documents that we could find used the phrase. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions used that phrase, and it appeared to be the acceptable phrase generally. I hope that the Government, who were positive towards the proposal in Committee, will be even more positive tonight and tell me that without more ado the amendment can be made.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are similarly small in terms of the space that they take up on the amendment paper, but they relate to the same part of the Bill. Part IX describes the report on the state of the environment to be produced and published by the mayor. The Bill states that it shall contain information about a list of matters. Here is another list. It comes from the Government, but it is a list that they are willing to have, so I shall not cavil at it. The seventh item in the list is that the report shall deal with:
the production, recycling and disposal of waste.
The other way in which waste is dealt with, which ought to be expressed explicitly rather than implied in the Bill, is to make sure that waste is minimised. We propose to include that. We hope that the Government accept our proposal. One of the big environmental challenges is to produce less waste and reduce what is produced. That is different from production, recycling and disposal.
I hope that these three little amendments will be acceptable to the Government. I have reason to believe that they might be, and, if so, we will rejoice in the prospect that Oppositions, large and not quite so large, can always be useful, even to the Government.

Mr. Randall: I well remember the Minister's words of—almost—acceptance of what I consider to be a sensible change. I also remember an amendment that I tabled at the same time, proposing the addition of biodiversity to the list. I believed, with what I now consider to have been misplaced optimism, that it would be incorporated in the Bill. Unfortunately, as a new and rather naive Member of Parliament, I thought that what the Minister said would actually happen. I will learn my lesson from that, and perhaps the other place will now manage to put in what is missing.

Mr. Raynsford: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) felt


encouraged in Committee. I hope that I can encourage him even more. The first amendment would replace "global warming" with "climate change", the second would add the word "minimisation" to the list of practices relating to waste on which the mayor must comment in the state of the environment report, and the third would add persons concerned with the minimisation of waste to the list of those whom the mayor may consult when preparing or revising the municipal waste management strategy. When we discussed the amendments in Committee, I acknowledged their purpose and good sense, and undertook to consider them further. I have now had time to give them that consideration, and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to accept all three in their entirety.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) should not despair because it has not been possible for us to incorporate all the amendments at this stage: there is another place in which further amendments may be made. He should not assume that we have overlooked his advocacy of biodiversity. I encourage him to live in hope; I also feel that, in the interests of minimisation of waste, we should bring the debate to an early conclusion.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister has accepted the amendments, and we are very grateful for that. To say that he accepts them "in their entirety" is probably overstating the case, given that they consist of two words, one word and one word respectively; but for that little acceptance we are grateful. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) had better go and find a Lord to do his work for him in what the Minister described as the other place. There is always work to be done in the other place.
I must not neglect to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who has just gone to catch his train. He prompted me to table the amendments. He is sorry that he cannot be here now, but he wants to share in the glory of the moment. [Interruption.] Of course I thank the Minister. I repeat that willingly, even after being prompted by the Minister for Transport in London.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 141, line 32, after 'production', insert ', minimisation'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Clause 267

THE MAYOR'S MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 143, line 24, after 'the' , insert ' minimisation, '.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Clause 299

POWER TO AMEND ACTS AND SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 156, line 22, after 'legislation' insert
'(including subordinate legislation made under or by virtue of this Act)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 104 to 107 and 114.

Mr. Raynsford: These are purely technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 103 to 107 would enable

an order to be made to amend the provisions of the Bill—for example, to allow the Secretary of State temporarily to assume the powers and duties that, under the Bill, are ultimately to be exercised by the GLA. Amendment No. 114 makes clear the powers in the Bill enabling amendments to enactments to be made by subordinate legislation to be used to amend legislation in relation to part III, relating to local government finance and related similar provisions, and to criminal offences.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 156, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

No. 105, in page 156, line 36, leave out
'enactment, any instrument made under any enactment'
and insert
'such enactment, or any instrument made under any such enactment, as is mentioned in subsection (I) above'.

No. 106, in page 156, line 37, at end insert—
'(4) The amendment by this Act of any provision is without prejudice to the exercise in relation to that provision of the powers conferred by this section.'.

No. 107, in page 156, line 37, at end insert—
'(5) For the purposes of this section "the relevant day" means the earliest day on which—

(a) the Authority and the functional bodies are all in being, and
(b) London Regional Transport and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District have ceased to exist,

and any reference to an Act passed before that day includes a reference to this Act.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 300

TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS, LIABILITIES, STAFF AND PENSION OBLIGATIONS

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 156, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 157.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 23—The Superannuation Act 1972.
Government new clause 24—Transitional and consequential provision.
Government new clause 25—Transfers of property, rights or liabilities.
Government new clause 26—Transfer schemes.
Government new clause 27—Contracts of employment etc.
Government new clause 28—Pensions.
Government new clause 29—Transfer and pension instruments: common provisions.
Government new clause 30—Continuity.
Government amendments Nos. 109 to 113.

Mr. Raynsford: I turn to slightly more detailed matters. The measures cover a range of issues in part XII, notably in relation to transfers from predecessor bodies, such as the London Research Centre and the Highways


Agency, to successor bodies, such as TfL: Transport for London. Staffing, pensions matters and other transitional and consequential provisions are also covered.
New clause 24 gives Ministers the power to make orders concerning incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary matters. It is a wide-ranging power, including, for example, the power to require bodies not to exercise powers granted under other legislation, but I make no apology for its scope.
Establishing a major organisation is not a simple task. The transition from predecessor bodies to the new GLA and functional bodies will be complex. As ever, to use a phrase that appeared frequently in the earlier stages of our deliberations, the devil will be in the detail. Hon. Members who have had any experience of the local government finance system will not be surprised when I say that the proper vehicle for the detailed transitional measures is by order, rather than the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister was right to describe it as an extremely wide new clause. Does it have recent and good precedent? That will not justify it, but at least it will give some consolation that someone else has let such a clause go through in some other legislation.

Mr. Raynsford: As I have already said, it is recognised that, in relation to local government finance, it is better for the detailed provisions to be made by order, rather than the Bill. We are following that particular precedent.
It is the intention to use that power to set out the transitional financial arrangements to apply to the GLA and functional bodies in 2000–2001. Because the GLA will not exist until part way through the year, the Secretary of State will set the GLA' s first-year budget and issue its precepts. He will provide that the existing precepting authorities do not issue a precept for that year.
The transitional financial arrangements will enable the Secretary of State temporarily to assume the powers and duties which, under the Bill, are ultimately to be exercised by the GLA, the mayor or the functional bodies. I emphasise that, in doing so, there will be full consultation with such interested parties as the predecessor bodies and the relevant local authority associations.
I turn to new clauses 25 and 26. We intend that more than a dozen predecessor bodies will be transferring some or all of their responsibilities to the GLA and its associated bodies. To accompany that transfer of functions, it will be necessary to transfer a wide range of property, rights and liabilities. Among other things, that will encompass land, contracts with other parties, buildings and staff contracts.
New clauses 25 and 26 set out the process by which the relevant property, rights and liabilities of predecessor bodies can be transferred to successor bodies. Such transfers would be able to be carried out either by order made by a Minister, or by a transfer scheme. Both routes are well precedented for such transfers.
New clause 29 and new schedule 1 provide powers to assist with that transfer process. They are based closely on other recent Acts that have provided for Government reorganisations, although some more specific tailoring has been required to reflect the particular circumstances of the GLA, its associated bodies and relevant predecessor bodies.
New clause 27 makes it clear that the powers to transfer property, rights and liabilities will also cover the transfer of staff from predecessor bodies to the GLA and it

associated bodies. As we have already made it clear, when that happens, staff will transfer on their existing terms and conditions and with continuity of employment. As with any employment, terms and conditions cannot be guaranteed for ever, but any changes that the new employer wishes to introduce in the future will have to be negotiated with staff representatives, in line with employment law.
I should now make it clear that establishment of the GLA will not lead to a large increase in the number of public sector employees. Apart from an estimated 250 new employees to serve the mayor and the assembly, the remaining staff within the core GLA will be drawn from the absorbed bodies, such as the London Planning Advisory Committee. For the other new bodies, such as Transport for London, the vast majority of staff will come from existing public sector organisations. In total, approximately 55,000 employees from predecessor bodies are expected to staff the GLA and its associated bodies.
New clause 28 deals with the making of provisions by order in relation to pensions. We expect that the implications for the pension arrangements of the vast majority of groups of staff transferring to the GLA and its associated bodies will be minimal. Our broad policy is that staff transferring to those bodies will retain membership of their existing pension scheme on transfer.
The various groups of staff who will transfer to the GLA and its associated bodies are, between them, currently members of 10 different public sector pension schemes. In some cases—such as the local government pension scheme—a scheme's membership extends well beyond the relevant predecessor bodies; in others, the whole of the scheme's membership will move to the GLA or associated bodies. Given the differing circumstances, we are considering how best to implement our broad policy that staff should retain membership of their current pension schemes on transfer. We are also examining what pension arrangements should be put in place for staff who join the GLA and associated bodies after their establishment—although, clearly, the successor bodies themselves will want, in due course, to consider the most appropriate arrangements for such staff.
New clause 28 provides the broad powers that we believe are likely to be necessary to deliver the approach that I have just outlined, and to ensure that the new bodies are staffed effectively from day one—thus, for example, enabling provision to be made for the establishment or administration of pension schemes, and enabling staff to join or remain within a particular scheme.
More specifically, new clause 23 provides for schedule 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 to be amended, to add the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London development agency, the Metropolitan police authority and the London Transport Users Committee to the list of bodies whose staff are entitled to be members of the principal civil service pension scheme. Consequently, staff transferring to those bodies who are currently members of Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme will be able to retain their membership on transfer.
Naturally, pensions arrangements will be of great interest to staff who are moving to the GLA and associated bodies. As new schedule 1, paragraph 4(3)(c) makes it clear, in making provision in relation to pensions, we shall first consult the trustees, managers or administrators of relevant pension schemes.
New clause 30 will provide the necessary continuity between predecessor bodies and successor bodies. Therefore, for example, it would permit anything in the process of being dealt with by a predecessor body at the point of transfer of its functions—such as legal proceedings—to be continued by the relevant successor body after its establishment, thereby allowing a smooth transfer of functions.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 to 113 are consequential amendments.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 will have the effect of deleting clause 300—which previously made broad reference to transfer matters, and which, as I have just spelt out, we propose should be replaced by the more detailed provisions in new clauses 23 to 29.
Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 are consequential on that, and would add any statutory instruments made under new clauses 24, 25, 28 and 29 to the list of those which would be subject to rules for laying statutory instruments provided in clause 301.
I hope that all the amendments in this group will be agreed by the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In passing this group of amendments, we shall be adding eight more new clauses, one more new schedule, and 11 more pages to a Bill that is the largest Bill—it is already 306 clauses and 26 schedules long—in living memory.
I have one question. Will the orders that can be made under the wide-ranging new clause 24 always come before the House for debate? What sort of orders will they be? What will the procedure be and what power will the House have to deal with the supplementary legislation that will follow?

Mr. Raynsford: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the normal procedures for the scrutiny of statutory instruments will apply. I shall write to him about the detailed provisions of new clause 24 after I have had a chance to study them further. As I am sure he recognises, this is a large and complex range of amendments and new clauses, which we have moved to ensure that the appropriate transitional provisions are fully in place. The Bill is long and has been much amended. The ratio of amendments moved by Opposition parties to those moved by the Government works out at approximately 9:1.

Mr. Hughes: And what is the ratio of those that have been accepted by the Government?

Mr. Raynsford: It has certainly improved considerably to the advantage of the Opposition after the three that I accepted earlier this evening.

Mr. Brooke: I have a quick question for the Minister. He said that the devil was in the detail. Have the eight new clauses and the new schedule exorcised the devil? They represent a considerable addition to the Bill, regardless of who takes the credit or discredit for them. Does he imagine that they will be porous and will require further amendment in another place, or does he think that the job has been done?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He will recognise that in this long Bill—it was

270 clauses before Committee, it now stands at 306 and, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has pointed out, it will become even bigger as a result of what we have agreed this evening—it was inevitable that some areas would be less fully covered initially. We discussed that in Committee in relation to the section on culture. I said that we would bring forward further amendments on transitional provisions because the issues were not fully covered initially.
The right hon. Gentleman has long experience in government and I know that he will recognise the practical issues involved in getting such complex legislation presented in time to go through all its parliamentary stages. Some amendments are inevitable. We are making the changes in a proper spirit of openness. I hope that he recognises that the Government are trying to do the best that they can. I cannot give a guarantee that no more amendments will be needed, but I believe that the measures that we are presenting to the House provide the necessary cover to deal with the transitional requirements, so there should be no need for further substantial amendments in the other place on these issues.

Amendment agreed to.

New Clause 23

THE SUPERANNUATION ACT 1972

'.—(1) Employment with—

(a) the Authority,
(b) Transport for London,
(c) the London Development Agency,
(d) the Metropolitan Police Authority, or
(e) the London Transport Users' Committee,

shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply.
(2) Accordingly, in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) the following entries shall be inserted in the list of "Other bodies" at the appropriate places—

"The Greater London Authority."
"The London Development Agency."
"The London Transport Users' Committee."
"The Metropolitan Police Authority."
"Transport for London."

(3) Each of the bodies specified in subsection (1) above shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to this section (so far as referable to that body) in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
(4) Where an employee of any of the bodies specified in subsection (1) above—

(a) is, by reference to that employment, a participant in a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, and
(b) is also a member of that body,

the Minister for the Civil Service may determine that his service as such a member shall be treated for the purpose of the scheme as service as an employee of that body.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION

'.—(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient—

(a) for the general purposes, or any particular purposes, of this Act;
(b) in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, any provision made by or under this Act;
(c) for giving full effect to this Act; or
(d) in consequence of such of the provisions of any other Act passed—


(i) before the relevant day, within the meaning of section 299 above, or
(ii) in the Session in which that day falls,

as apply to any area, or any body or person, affected by this Act.

(2) The provision that may be made by an order under this section includes provision—

(a) for requiring or enabling any body or person by whom any powers will, on a date specified by or under this Act, become exercisable by virtue of any provision made by or under this Act to take before that date any steps which are necessary or expedient as a preliminary to the exercise of those powers;
(b) for the making, before any date specified by or under this Act, of arrangements for securing the satisfactory operation on or after that date of any provision made by or under this Act and for defraying the cost of any such arrangements;
(c) for authorising or requiring the exercise by or in relation to any body or person before a date specified by or under this Act, and whether with or without modifications, of any functions under or by virtue of this Act which will become exercisable on or after that date by or in relation to other bodies or persons, and for defraying any costs incurred in connection with any such exercise;
(d) for requiring any body or person by whom any powers are exercisable before a date specified by or under this Act to refrain from exercising those powers on or after that date or to refrain from exercising them as respects a period beginning on or after that date.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES

'.—(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for or in connection with the transfer to any body or person falling within subsection (2) below of such property, rights or liabilities of a body or person falling within subsection (3) below as he may consider appropriate.

(2) The bodies and persons falling within this subsection are—

(a) the Authority;
(b) any functional body;
(c) any subsidiary of Transport for London;
(d) any local authority or the Corporation of London;
(e) any police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996;
(f) the London Transport Users' Committee;
(g) any body or person, or the holder of any office, established by or under this Act and not falling within the preceding paragraphs of this subsection.

(3) The bodies and persons falling within this subsection are—

(a) any Minister of the Crown or government department;

(b) any London borough council or the Corporation of London;
(c) London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of London Regional Transport;
(d) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District;
(e) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;
(f) the Development Commission;
(g) the Urban Regeneration Agency;
(h) any body or person, or the holder of any office, for whose abolition or dissolution provision is made by or under this Act and which does not fall within the preceding paragraphs of this subsection.

(4) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is exercisable—

(a) for the general purposes, or any particular purposes, of this Act;
(b) in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, any provision made by or under this Act;
(c) for giving full effect to this Act; or
(d) in consequence of such of the provisions of any other Act passed—


(i) before the relevant day, within the meaning of section 299 above, or
(ii) in the Session in which that day falls,

as apply to any area, or any body or person, affected by this Act.

(5) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is also exercisable in relation to a transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the London Development Agency for any purpose for which such a transfer may be made by a scheme under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

(6) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for or in connection with the creation of rights or liabilities.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

TRANSFER SCHEMES

'.—(1) A Minister of the Crown may make schemes for the transfer from the Crown to one or more bodies or persons falling within subsection (2) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above of such property, rights or liabilities as he may consider appropriate.

(2) A Minister of the Crown may by directions require a body or person falling within subsection (3) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above to make one or more schemes for the transfer to a body or person falling within subsection (2) of that section of such property, rights or liabilities as he may consider appropriate.

(3) The powers conferred by subsection (1) or (2) above are exercisable—

(a) for the general purposes, or any particular purposes, of this Act;
(b) in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, any provision made by or under this Act;
(c) for giving full effect to this Act; or
(d) in consequence of such of the provisions of any other Act passed—


(i) before the relevant day, within the meaning of section 299 above, or
(ii) in the Session in which that day falls,

as apply to any area, or any body or person, affected by this Act.

(4) The powers conferred by subsection (1) or (2) above are also exercisable in relation to a transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the London Development Agency for any purpose for which such a transfer may be made by a scheme under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

(5) A scheme under subsection (1) or (2) above may make any provision that may be made by order under subsection (1) of section (Pensions) below.

(6) Accordingly, the bodies or persons in relation to which provision may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above are not restricted to those falling within subsection (2) or (3) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above.

(7) Schedule (Transfer schemes) to this Act (which makes provision in relation to schemes under this section) shall have effect.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC

'.—(1) The provision that may be made by transfer instrument includes provision for or in connection with the transfer of—

(a) rights and liabilities under contracts of employment; or
(b) members of police forces and other persons in relation to whom paragraph (a) above does not apply.

(2) Subsections (3) to (5) below apply where any rights or liabilities under a contract of employment are transferred by virtue of this Act.

(3) Anything done by or in relation to the transferor in respect of the employee before the day on which the transfer takes effect shall be treated on and after that day as done by or in relation to the transferee.

(4) For the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc) the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer.

(5) For the purposes of that Act, the employee's period of employment with the transferor shall count as a period of employment with the transferee, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

(6) In the application of this section to a person employed in the civil service of the State—

(a) any reference to employment includes a reference to employment in that service;
(b) any reference to a contract of employment includes a reference to the terms of that employment; and
(c) any reference to dismissal includes a reference to the termination of that employment.

(7) Where a transfer instrument makes provision for or in connection with a transfer falling within subsection (1)(b) above, the provision that may be made includes provision for or in connection with applying subsections (3) to (6) above (with or without modifications) in relation to or otherwise in connection with the transfer.

(8) In this section "transfer instrument" means—

(a) an order under section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above; or
(b) a scheme under section (Transfer schemes) above.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

PENSIONS

'.—(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision with respect to the provision of pensions for or in respect of employees, or persons who have been employees, of, or of subsidiaries of,—


(a) any of the bodies or persons falling within subsection (2) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above;
(b) any of the bodies or persons falling within subsection (3) of that section; or
(c) any body or person whose undertaking, or part of whose undertaking, has been transferred by or under any enactment to a body or person falling within paragraph (b) above.

(2) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) above includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) the establishment of pension schemes or pension funds;
(b) the administration or management of pension schemes or pension funds;
(c) enabling persons to participate, or continue to participate, in any pension scheme and requiring their employers to make contributions under that scheme;
(d) the rates, or the variation of the rates, of contributions to be made under any pension scheme, whether by employees or employers;
(e) the re-arrangement, amalgamation, simplification or assimilation of pension schemes.

(3) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for or in connection with—

(a) establishing a body to administer or assist in administering a pension scheme;
(b) enabling all or any of the participants in a pension scheme to become instead participants in another pension scheme;
(c) empowering the persons responsible for administering a pension scheme to carry out arrangements for the participation in the scheme of a person who has been an employee of, or of a subsidiary of, a body or person falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above;
(d) the manner in which questions arising under the order are to be determined.

(4) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for or in connection with cases where a person who, having pension rights to which such an order relates, becomes—

(a) a member of a body or person falling within subsection (2) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above, or
(b) a director of a subsidiary of such a body or person.

(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (4) above includes, in particular, provision for or in connection with—

(a) treating a person's service as such a member or director as service in the employment of, or of a subsidiary of, such a body or person; or
(b) treating two or more periods of service as continuous.

(6) In this section—

"pension" means a pension of any kind payable to or in respect of a person and includes—

(a) a lump sum, allowance or gratuity so payable; and
(b) a return of contributions, with or without interest or other addition;

"pension rights" includes—

(a) all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of a person; and
(b) a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

TRANSFER AND PENSION INSTRUMENTS: COMMON PROVISIONS

'.—(1) The property, rights and liabilities which may be transferred by a transfer or pension instrument include property, rights and liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned.

(2) No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, right to compensation, option or similar right affecting any land or other property shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land or other property by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument (whether or not any consent required to the transfer has been obtained).

(3) Any such right or option shall accordingly have effect in the case of any such transfer as if—

(a) the transferee in relation to that transfer were the same person in law as the transferor; and
(b) no transfer of the land or other property had taken place.

(4) Subsection (3) above is without prejudice to section (Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT) above, section (Continuity) below or any other provision made by or under this Act which makes transitional provision in relation to a transfer.

(5) Subsections (2) to (4) above shall have effect in relation to—

(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property, or
(b) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property,
as it has effect in relation to a transfer of land or other property.

(6) No right to terminate or vary a contract, and no other rights under a contract, shall operate or become exercisable by reason of any transfer of shares by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument.

(7) A transfer or pension instrument may define the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred by it—

(a) by specifying or describing them;
(b) by referring to all (or all but so much as may be excepted) of the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the undertaking of the transferor; or
(c) partly in the one way and partly in the other.

(8) A transfer or pension instrument may make provision for the apportionment or division of any property, rights or liabilities.

(9) Where a transfer or pension instrument makes provision for the apportionment or division between two or more persons of any rights or liabilities under a contract, the contract shall have effect, as from the coming into force of the provision, as if it constituted two or more separate contracts separately enforceable by and against each of those persons respectively as respects the part of the rights or liabilities which falls to him as a result of the apportionment or division.

(10) The provision that may be made by a transfer or pension instrument includes provision for —

(a) any transfer of land or other property by virtue of the instrument,
(b) the grant or creation of any estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property by virtue of the instrument, or
(c) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property by virtue of the instrument,

to be on such terms, including financial terms, as the body or person making the instrument thinks fit.

(11) A transfer or pension instrument, other than an order under section (Pensions) above, may provide—

(a) that disputes as to the effect of the instrument between the transferor and any transferee are to be referred to such arbitration as may be specified in or determined under the instrument;

(b) that determinations on such arbitrations and certificates given jointly by the transferor and any transferee as to the effect of the instrument as between them are to be conclusive for all purposes.

(12) A Minister of the Crown may by order confer on any body or person to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred by a transfer or pension instrument any statutory functions which were previously exercisable in relation to that property or, as the case may be, those rights or liabilities—

(a) by a body or person falling within subsection (3) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above; or
(b) in the case of a transfer under or by virtue of section (Pensions) below, the transferor under the instrument.

(13) If at any time after a transfer or pension instrument has come into force a Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to do so, having consulted any body which, or person who, may be affected, he may by order provide that the instrument shall for all purposes be deemed to have come into force with such modifications as may be specified in the order.

(14) An order under sub-paragraph (13) above may make such provision as could have been made by the instrument.

(15) It shall be the duty of each of the bodies and persons falling within subsection (3) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above to provide any Minister of the Crown with such information or assistance as he may reasonably require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any powers exercisable by him in relation to transfer or pension instruments.

(16) In this section "transfer or pension instrument" means—

(a) an order under section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) or (Pensions) above; or
(b) a scheme under section (Transfer schemes) above.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

CONTINUITY

'.—(1) None of the following, that is to say

(a) the abolition or dissolution by or under this Act of any body or office,
(b) the transfer, repeal or revocation by or under this Act of any functions, or
(c) the transfer by or under this Act of any property, rights or liabilities,

shall affect the validity of anything done before the abolition, dissolution, transfer, repeal or revocation takes effect.

(2) Subsections (3) to (5) below apply where any functions, property, rights or liabilities are transferred by or under this Act from a body or person ("the transferor") to another body or person ("the transferee").

(3) There may be continued by or in relation to the transferee anything (including legal proceedings) which—

(a) relates to any of the functions, property, rights or liabilities transferred, and
(b) is in the process of being done by or in relation to the transferor immediately before the transfer takes effect.

(4) Anything which—

(a) was done by the transferor for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with any of the functions, property, rights or liabilities transferred, and
(b) is in effect immediately before the transfer takes effect, shall have effect as if done by the transferee.

(5) The transferee shall be substituted for the transferor in any instruments, contracts or legal proceedings which—

(a) relate to any of the functions, property, rights or liabilities transferred, and
(b) are made or commenced before the transfer takes effect.

(6) Any reference in this section to anything done by or in relation to the transferor includes a reference to anything which by virtue of any enactment is treated as having been done by or in relation to the transferor.

(7) Any question under this section as to—

(a) whether any particular functions, property, rights or liabilities are transferred by or under this Act, or
(b) the body to which, or person to whom, any particular functions, property, rights or liabilities are so transferred,

may be determined by a direction given by the Secretary of State.

(8) Subsections (1) to (7) above are without prejudice to any provision made by or under this Act in relation to any particular functions.

(9) Nothing in this section shall be construed—

(a) as continuing in force any contract of employment; or
(b) as transferring any rights or liabilities relating to pensions.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36

ACCOMMODATION FOR AUTHORITY AND FUNCTIONAL BODIES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to provide accommodation for—

(a) the Authority, and
(b) each of the functional bodies,

during the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that appropriate accommodation is available or has been provided for a body falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above, he may by order make provision substituting for the period for the time being specified in that subsection as it has effect in relation to that body such shorter period as he may determine.

(3) Where the Secretary of State—

(a) has made an order under subsection (2) above in the case of any body, but
(b) subsequently considers that it is necessary, expedient or desirable to extend the period for the time being specified in subsection (1) above as it has effect in relation to that body,

he may by order make provision substituting for that period (whether or not it has expired) such longer period as he may determine, ending not later than the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) The Secretary of State need not provide accommodation for a body under subsection (1) above during any period as respects which that body has notified him that it does not require him to provide accommodation for it.

(5) The provision of accommodation under subsection (1) above shall be on such financial and other terms as the Secretary of State may
determine.'—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for the Greater London Authority and the functional bodies in the first instance. That is to

ensure a smooth and orderly transition to the new arrangements. Our objective is to ensure that when the new authority and functional bodies come into existence, they are not distracted from their main purpose by the need to find accommodation. Where staff who are being absorbed into the new authority and functional bodies are already in appropriate accommodation, we expect that they will remain where they are, but new staff and absorbed staff who cannot remain in their current accommodation will need to be provided for. The amendment will ensure that the Secretary of State makes the necessary preparations.

Mr. Ottaway: What is the position regarding the interim accommodation for the new authority?

Mr. Raynsford: I hope to be able to make an announcement on the interim accommodation in the very near future. We have been working hard to find—

It being Twelve midnight, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [30 April].

Question agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Schedule

TRANSFER SCHEMES

Interpretation

1. In this Schedule—

"Crown scheme" means a scheme under subsection (1) of section (Transfer schemes) of this Act;
"ordinary scheme" means a scheme under subsection (2) of section (Transfer schemes) of this Act;
"predecessor bodies" means the bodies or persons falling within subsection (3) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above;
"successor bodies" means the bodies or persons falling within subsection (2) of section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities) above;
"transfer scheme" means a Crown scheme or an ordinary scheme.

Effect of transfer scheme

2. A transfer scheme shall by virtue of this paragraph take effect in accordance with the provisions of the scheme on such day or days as may be appointed by the scheme.

Other provision that may be contained in a Crown scheme

3.—(1) A Crown scheme may also contain provision—

(a) for the creation, in relation to property which the scheme transfers, of an interest in or right over the property in favour of the transferor;
(b) for the creation of any rights or liabilities as between two or more of the successor bodies, or as between one or more of them and the Crown;
(c) for any rights or liabilities specified or described in the scheme to be, or to be to any extent, enforceable by or against two or more of the successor bodies, or by or against one or more of them and the Crown;


(d) for imposing on any two or more of the successor bodies, or on one or more of them and the Crown, an obligation to enter into written agreements with, or execute other instruments in favour of, each other.

(2) A Crown scheme may also contain provision—

(a) for the creation in favour of any of the successor bodies of an interest in or right over property retained by the Crown;
(b) for the creation in favour of any of the successor bodies of an interest in or right over property which the scheme transfers to another of those bodies.

Making and approval of ordinary scheme

4.—(1) Where any of the predecessor bodies is required to make an ordinary scheme, it shall submit the scheme to the relevant Minister for his approval before such date as he may direct.

(2) Where a scheme is submitted under sub-paragraph (1) above, the relevant Minister may approve the scheme either with or without modification.

(3) Before giving his approval under sub-paragraph (2) above, the relevant Minister must consult—

(a) the transferor;
(b) such of the successor bodies as have been established and are affected by the scheme; and
(c) if the scheme makes provision by virtue of subsection (5) of section (Transfer schemes) of this Act, the trustees or managers, or the administrators, of any existing pension scheme in relation to which provision is made.

(4) A scheme required to be submitted under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not take effect unless approved under sub-paragraph (2) above.

(5) In this paragraph "the relevant Minister", in relation to an ordinary scheme, means the Minister of the Crown who gave the direction under section (Transfer schemes)(2) of this Act to make the scheme.

Power of Minister to make ordinary scheme

5.—(1) A Minister of the Crown who has given a direction under subsection (2) of section (Transfer schemes) of this Act may, after consultation with the transferor and such of the successor bodies as are affected, make an ordinary scheme himself if—

(a) he decides not to approve (with or without modifications) a scheme submitted to him pursuant to the direction before the date specified for the purpose under paragraph 4(1) above, or
(b) no ordinary scheme is submitted to him pursuant to the direction for approval before that date.

(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall prevent a Minister of the Crown from approving a scheme submitted to him after the date specified in relation to it under paragraph 4(1) above.

(3) A scheme made by a Minister of the Crown under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be treated for all purposes as having been made by the transferor and approved by the Minister.

Other provision that may be contained in an ordinary scheme

6. An ordinary scheme may also contain provision—

(a) for the creation, in relation to property which the scheme transfers, of an interest in or right over the property in favour of the transferor;
(b) for the creation in favour of any of the successor bodies of—

(i) an interest in or right over property retained by the transferor; or
(ii) an interest in or right over property which the scheme transfers to another of those bodies;

(c) for the creation of any rights or liabilities as between two or more of the successor bodies or as between one or more of those bodies and the transferor;

(d) for any rights or liabilities specified or described in the scheme to be, or to be to any extent, enforceable by or against two or more of the successor bodies, or by or against one or more of those bodies and the transferor;
(e) for imposing on any two or more of the successor bodies, or on one or more of those bodies and the transferor, an obligation to enter into written agreements with, or execute other instruments in favour of, each other.

Power to make consequential, transitional etc provision

7. A transfer scheme may contain incidental, consequential, supplemental or transitional provision and savings.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CIVIL AVIATION

That the draft Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REFERENDUMS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Referendums Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums so payable under the Act.—[lane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Hosiery and Knitwear Industry

Mr. David Tredinnick: The petition was the idea of hosiery and knitwear workers in my constituency at Tonelli, Lee Ann, Turner and Jarvis, Davenports and other factories. It contains over 350 signatures, collected over a few days, including those of Elizabeth Richardson, Jacqueline Spencer, Mrs. Seaman, Mary Sherwin, Carole Claridge and Cathy Woodcock. It came about because of the widespread belief that the Labour Government are doing nothing to help the hosiery and knitwear industry and because people are fed up with the bankruptcies and lay-offs in the industry.

The petition reads:
The petition of residents of Hinckley and Bosworth declares that the hosiery and knitwear industry is facing serious problems as a result of overseas competition and other matters.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to support the hosiery and knitwear industry at this difficult time in much the same way that they are prepared to offer support for the motor industry.
And the petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — A5 (Dunstable)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Sir David Madel: I welcome the opportunity to have a short debate on the proposal by the Highways Agency to establish a permanent bus lane on the A5 in Dunstable. I am sorry that the debate has been a long time in coming, and I am grateful that the Under-Secretary the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is here to reply.
The proposal by the Highways Agency is imminent. Later this month, it wishes to go ahead and make the bus lane permanent; 7 am to 7 pm every day of the week. I want the agency to think again on the timing of the proposal and on the practical details, should it come into permanent effect. I hope that I can persuade the Government to agree.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary is here to reply, because I wish to refer to her constituency in support of my arguments. My argument in that area is relevant to the current position in Dunstable.
The permanent bus lane proposals cannot be divorced from the traffic problems in Dunstable, particularly the heavy lorries that use the A5 through the town. They will go on doing so as long as we do not have a bypass. The latest position on the bypass is relevant to the proposal to establish a permanent bus lane, and has been summed up in a letter to me from Gwyn Drake.
Mr. Drake is divisional director, networking customer services, at the Highways Agency. His letter of 14 April, concerning the possibility of Dunstable getting an eastern bypass, says:
Included amongst these studies will be one of the Ml corridor from London to the South Midlands. The A5 Dunstable Eastern Bypass will be considered as part of this study by the Regional Planning Conferences before a decision is made on whether that scheme, or indeed any, will proceed.
The Government have earned not a cheer but a huge sigh of relief in Dunstable, because there was a possibility that the A5 eastern bypass would be dropped from the roads programme, as some other bypasses have been. However, I do not regard Mr. Drake's letter as very optimistic. Frankly, we in Dunstable do not need any more studies, conferences, inquiries, exhibitions or any of the other things that happen when a bypass is being considered. We have had more of those than the Minister and I have had hot dinners. We should now take the necessary and lawful measures to construct the bypass and not take refuge in endless inquiries, proposals, counter-proposals, exhibitions and pre-bypass conferences. We have had those in rich abundance and we now want to move ahead.
I accept that the bypass will not come overnight. In the absence of a bypass, I have some counter-proposals for the Government and the Highways Agency on the agency's plan for a bus lane on the A5 in Dunstable, operating from 7 am to 7 pm every day. My first counter-proposal is that it should not operate on a Sunday. The pattern of life is entirely different, and there is absolutely no need to operate it then, not least because children do not go to school on Sunday, so the school bus argument does not apply. The same argument applies to Saturday.
My counter-proposal on Mondays to Fridays is that, if we have to have the bus lane, it should operate from 7 am to 10 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm, in what is called the rush hour, although there is no rush hour in Dunstable, because rather than a rush of traffic we have constant congestion.
I said that I would mention the Minister's constituency. This morning, I drove down Finchley road, which I am pretty sure runs right through her constituency, towards Swiss Cottage. The bus lane there operates from 7 am to 10 am. The difference between that road and the A5 in Dunstable is that, in addition to the bus lane, it has two lanes for cars and lorries; no such luck in Dunstable, where we have only the one. If 7 am to 10 am is good enough for Finchley road, it is certainly good enough for Dunstable.
As I drove into London this morning, I noticed that Wellington road, which runs from Lord's cricket ground to Swiss Cottage and may be on the edge of the Minister's constituency, has a bus lane operating from 4 pm to 7 pm, which is exactly what I want for Dunstable. What is good enough for Wellington road in London should be good enough for the A5 in Dunstable. I think that that is a perfectly sensible counter-proposal.
My next counter-proposal is that when there is a crash on the M1b—and, alas, they happen—an electronic sign near the bus lane should be made to read, "Crash on M1, bus lane suspended". In other words, the bus lane could be used because of conditions on the M1.
I do not normally disagree with Bedfordshire police—in fact, I am a strong supporter of theirs—but I do not agree with their approach to this problem. Once there is a crash on the MI, Dunstable becomes very clogged up. The police say that they do not divert traffic into Dunstable, but that is not the point because the traffic goes there anyway. After a smash on the MI in the Luton area, or between Luton and Toddington, or between Luton and junction 9—the A5 turn-off—lorry and car drivers who have their radios tuned to a frequency with traffic reports, which will mention the heavy congestion on the M1 caused by the smash, will turn off in the Milton Keynes area. They will drive down the Milton Keynes bypass, which is a nice dual carriageway, and through Great Brickhills—another nice dual carriageway bypass—to the A5 in Bedfordshire and through Dunstable.
My constituents cannot understand why, if there is a crash on the M1, we should have extra congestion in Dunstable simply because the Highways Agency wants the bus lane to operate regardless of the conditions on the M1. That is a serious, practical point and it strikes a chord with my constituents and those who travel through Dunstable if the M1 is at a complete standstill.
If we are to have the bus lane, we do not need to waste money on painting it. My constituents are law abiding and they can read. The Highways Agency should keep costs down. A white line and a sign saying "bus lane" are all that is needed. We do not need money spent on painting the bus lane red or green. My constituents would not understand that, in view of the police and revenue support grant settlements we have had. If there is money around to be spent on paint, the priority in Bedfordshire is to paint the schools, not the bus lane.
I have taken a close interest in the bypasses that have gone ahead, especially the Newbury bypass, with the long battle to get it through. It opened in November and I have


consulted people in Newbury. Once it opened, they say that there was a noticeable reduction in heavy goods vehicles throughout the day, especially at peak times, and—along with pedestrianisation of the town centre, which followed soon after the bypass opened—the town is now more attractive for shoppers and commercial organisations. That is exactly what would happen in Dunstable if we could get our bypass. The heavy lorries would leave and we could get on with pedestrianisation measures and with the bus lanes. The Highways Agency is putting the cart before the horse by introducing the bus lane before we have the bypass.
If the Highways Agency and the Government insist on going ahead with the bus lane without the bypass, the least I hope that they will do is to agree to my counterproposals. They have the support of my constituents, they are practical—I have thought them out carefully—and they are for the benefit of the town and my constituents. If they were adopted, the Highways Agency would do itself a world of good in public esteem in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will agree.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir David Madel) on securing this debate. As he has been at pains to point out, the A5 is a trunk road on the core network, of which the High street in Dunstable forms a part. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's misgivings about the experimental bus lane.
The Government want to make buses a real and attractive alternative to cars, especially in busy town centres such as Dunstable where there are congested roads such as the A5. Our intention to do this was set out in last summer's White Paper entitled "A New Deal for Transport", and the detail was provided in the daughter document published in March, "From Workhorse to Thoroughbred—A Better Role for Bus Travel". With the national picture showing that a quarter of all car journeys are now of less than two miles, it is surely sensible to examine and, I hope, change our travel habits.
The Highways Agency, responding to the challenge of making best use of our trunk roads, has discussed the management of traffic on the A5 in Dunstable with the local authorities, the bus companies and the police. It has recognised that bus priority in Dunstable High street would be a positive benefit.
The idea is not new. It was first suggested in 1994 by the South Bedfordshire district council as a means of encouraging the use of public transport. This was subsequently carried forward in the booklet entitled "The Future of Our Town Centre—A Draft Strategy for Dunstable" as promoted and published by the Dunstable town centre management committee. In December 1996, a seminar attended by local authorities, industry and road user groups concluded that there was a need for a southbound bus lane to improve the reliability of bus services through the town centre. This was regarded as a precursor to any town centre improvements and as a valuable means of encouraging the shift away from the car to public transport.
The Highways Agency proceeded with caution and decided that the bus lane should be introduced on an experimental basis. Its success would be monitored before

the decision was taken to confirm or remove it. The trial southbound bus lane—360 m, or 400 yd, in length—was set up in High street north on 9 March 1998. A monitoring exercise has been under way since that time. That has shown that bus patronage has increased by about 18 per cent., and that bus journey times have reduced by up to four minutes and reliability has improved. The A5 through Dunstable is congested, and queueing has always been a factor, but the monitoring has shown too that journey times for other road users have not been significantly affected, and that safety for cyclists, permitted to use the bus lane, has improved.
The Highways Agency received nine letters objecting to the confirmation of the bus lane, and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has also raised four issues that are of concern. The main worry cited by the nine objectors was that the bus lane had increased queueing and congestion in the town centre, leading to rat running along adjacent roads. However, the monitoring exercise has shown that the bus lane has not created significant problems for other road users. Surveys have shown that journey times and queues have remained much as before the bus lane was introduced. All the objectors have received individual letters of explanation from the Highways Agency.
The concerns of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, which he outlined, focus on four aspects of the bus lane—the hours that it operates; the days of the week on which it operates; whether it should be open to other users, such as taxis and motorcycles; and whether it should be suspended, by electronic signing, when an incident occurs on—and so when traffic diverts from—the M1. The hon. Gentleman is also worried about the possible costs of painting the lane.
I know that the hon. Gentleman feels that the bus lane is premature until the future of the A5 Dunstable eastern bypass has been decided. Indeed, he said that the proposal was a case of putting the cart before the horse. The hon. Gentleman discussed these points at a meeting with officers from the Highways Agency, and as a result the agency consulted further with its partners on this initiative—the district, town and county councils, the Arriva bus company and the Bedfordshire police.
The consensus was that the hours of operation were appropriate, and were producing real benefits, but that the facility need not operate on Sundays. Therefore, the Sunday operation would not be confirmed.
It was felt that usage of the bus lane should not be extended to taxis and motorcycles. The use of bus lanes by motorcycles is a complex issue, but here, it was felt that the mixture would not be a happy one. As taxis in Dunstable are not generally of the black cab type, the police felt that there could be enforcement problems.
The police did not want special signing or suspension of the bus lane during an incident on the Ml, as this southbound section of the A5 was not on the recognised, signed diversion route. Painting the relevant part of the road would reinforce to road users that they were not allowed in the bus route.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned bus routes in my constituency on the Finchley road but neglected to point out that the part to which he referred is also a red route. I am not aware that anyone has advocated making the A5 through Dunstable town centre a red route.


The A5 Dunstable eastern bypass was part of the trunk road programme reviewed last year. The report "New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" did not include the scheme in the targeted programme of improvements, but listed it as a scheme that will be considered in the London to south midlands multi-modal study, subject to the views of the regional planning conference. The bypass, if eventually built, will not be a reality within the short to medium term.
Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, I cannot agree that the bus lane is putting the cart before the horse. If measures are not taken to deal with congestion now, the situation for all our constituents could become intolerable and have a most deleterious effect on the life of city centres by making it so unpleasant that people did not wish to live, shop or introduce businesses there. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of which is the cart and which the horse in this debate.
We need to make a difference to people's travel habits now if we are to bring any change for the better to hard-pressed communities such as Dunstable. The Highways Agency is right to set about making better use of trunk roads such as the A5. There is always a duty to ensure that new initiatives are effective and bring real improvements and, on balance, do not make conditions

worse for road users. In this case, I am content that the cautious approach and monitoring work that the Highways Agency has carried out has amply demonstrated that the bus lane is a good investment, and fully in accord with Government policy.
Last November, my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety announced the success of the trial bus lane and his intention to make it permanent. A draft traffic regulation order was published in January to start the process of confirmation. That order attracted the nine objections to which I referred.
The Highways Agency's divisional director has considered in detail all the comments and objections received, and recommended to Lord Whitty that the objections should be overruled. He is minded to accept that recommendation and confirm the order but wishes to consider the issues raised in this debate.
For a modest investment, a process of real change in travel habits to make better use of our trunk roads and support bus services has been started in Dunstable. The quality partnership approach that the Highways Agency has adopted is sound and has enabled it to demonstrate the support for, and benefits of, the project. I believe that the bus lane is effective and I look forward to Lord Whitty confirming that it will be made permanent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.